Scott
Verified User
It does, by definition. From The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition:
**
Adjective Capable of eliciting belief or trust.
**
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
It does, by definition. From The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition:
**
Adjective Capable of eliciting belief or trust.
**
Scott
Verified User
I've seen evidence which strongly suggests that biological viruses aren't real.
Scott
Verified User
Mike Stone has done no science.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:
An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory
The germ “theory:" a scientific foundation or a logical fallacy?mikestone.substack.com
The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”
How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."
The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 2: SMON Says
"Act like a virus!"
Science isn't just about doing experiments. It's also about following the scientific method when doing them. While Mike Stone may have done no experiments himself, he has certainly analyzed a lot of experiments that virologists have done and has found that the conclusions that virologists have drawn from them don't conform to the scientific method.
Come now Saunders, I've quoted Mike Stone quite a bit, to the point that I suspect some people in the audience may be tired of seeing said quotes. The fact that I didn't do so in my last post has a lot to do with that fact.
Great, but if you'd asked me to quote from an article to narrow down the text to focus on, I can't see myself not doing so.
I think it's safe to say with most of Mike Stone's readers, he's preaching to the choir, so starting off with this assertion that virology is not in fact a legitimate scientific field wouldn't ruffle many if any feathers for his base. That being said, I fully acknowledge that up until this point in his article, he certainly hasn't provided evidence to support this claim. Let's get further into the article...
If you have evidence that this method isn't still used to this day, by all means, present it.
How?
He never said it did. He said, and I quote, "no consistent or definitive evidence ever established a direct causal link between any of these agents and hepatitis." If you disagree with this assertion, by all means, let me know.
Alright, can you elaborate on why you think that Mike Stone is affirming the consequent? For those who are unfamiliar with this term, Wikipedia provides a helpful explanation:
**
For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not.
**
Source:
Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia
Scott
Verified User
Again, I've never implied that this is happening. As I've stated previously, I consider virology more like a religion, such as scientology. I suspect that most scientologists believe their religion is the truth, and I also suspect that most virologists believe in virology as well. But belief alone doesn't make something true.
How nice of you to move the goalposts from unbelievable to it's antonym.
Because you believe something doesn't mean it isn't unbelievable.
Scott
Verified User
No, it's not. Take a look at the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement in the opening post. There are doctors amoung them. Some no longer have licenses to practice, due mainly if not exclusively due to their stance on biological viruses, but they're still standing strong.
Scott
Verified User
Now you're creating a Strawman. He didn't question the existence of Covid. He questioned the policies, especially lockdowns, associated with Covid.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
I created no strawman. I made it clear that I was talking about the mainstream narrative in regards to "covid in general as well as biological viruses". Clearly, in the case of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, his focus was on the covid lockdowns, instead of whether biological viruses exist at all, but he also got some pretty negative backlash for his stand. To whit:
**
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who received death threats and was blacklisted by social media for challenging the feds' narrative on the Covid lockdown...
**
Source:
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
Fortunately, a fair amount of people have now realized that he was in the right and he has now received the American Academy of Sciences and Letters’ top intellectual freedom award.
It is my hope that one day, people such as Dr. Tom Cowan, the Bailey doctors and Mike Stone also receive recognition for their great work in exposing the fraud of virology.
Scott
Verified User
No, no grand conspiracy. It's more like Galileo challenging the Catholic church on its view that everything revolved around the earth. As far as I know, he never accused the Catholic Church of some grand conspiracy. For its part, the Catholic church stated that Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun had no scientific basis. I think we can agree that it was Galileo that was right, but at the time, the Catholic Church had a lot of power and so Galileo was put under house arrest for voicing his beliefs on the matter. Wikipedia has an article on the matter here:
Galileo affair - Wikipedia
Scott
Verified User
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.You did nothing of the sort. From the article I linked to in the post you were responding to:
[snip]
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
Again, I have never claimed that DDT was the -only- cause of polio. Here's an excerpt from an article that gets into other poisons causing polio:
**
In 1881, Popow of St. Petersburg, published an essay upon the pathological anatomy of arsenical paralysis as produced artificially in animals. The work of Popow was carried out under the guidance of the distinguished neurologist and microscopist, Professor Mierzeyeski. Popow concluded that arsenic, even in a few hours after its ingestion, may cause acute central myelitis or acute poliomyelitis.
During an epidemic of poliomyelitis in Australia in 1897, Altman pointed out that phosphorus had been widely used by farmers for fertilizing that year. This observation may be of significance since in recent years organic phosphorus insecticides, such as parathion, have been suspected as possible causes of poliomyelitis.
Onuff (1900) reported a case of a painter with flaccid paralysis of both legs, in whom the autopsy showed lesions characteristic of poliomyelitis.
Obsrastoff (1902) reported a case of acute poliomyelitis resulting from arsenic poisoning. Phillippe and Gauthard (1903) reported a case of anterior poliomyelitis from lead poisoning.
Gossage (1902), writing on infantile paralysis, says: "The nerve cells or fiber may be acutely disabled by the action of some poison circulating in the blood, and it is possible that such poison would only temporarily impair their functions or so seriously affect them that recovery would be impossible."
Dr. David E. Edsall (1907), writing on the pathology of carbon monoxide poisoning in Osler's System of Medicine, states: "Peripheral neuritis had repeatedly been described and poliomyelitis and disseminated encephalitis have been seen."
Collins and Martland (1908) reported a case of poliomyelitis in a man, 38 years of age, which resulted from the use of cyanide as a silver polish. The illness began with diarrhea, followed by headache and pain and stiffness in the back of the neck. About eight days after the onset of the illness, he became paralyzed. In discussing Collins and Martland's paper, Larkin stated that he had seen one instance of this disease following potassium cyanide poisoning.
In the spring of 1930, there occurred in Ohio, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and other states an epidemic of paralysis. The patients gave a history of drinking commercial extract of ginger. It is estimated that at the height of the epidemic there were 500 cases in Cincinnati district alone. The cause of the paralysis was subsequently shown to be triorthocresyl phosphate in a spurious Jamaica ginger. Death resulted not infrequently from respiratory paralysis similar to the bulbar paralysis deaths in poliomyelitis. On pathological examination, the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord in these cases showed lesions similar to those of poliomyelitis.
These incidents show that epidemics of poisoning occur and furthermore, that epidemic diseases do not always indicate that they are caused by infectious agents. Moreover, following the ingestion of the spurious Jamaica ginger, the symptoms appeared two to ten days later. In some cases a longer time elapsed. This latent period is comparable to the incubation period of infections diseases. As a matter of fact, the incubation period of poliomyelitis is commonly stated to be seven to 10 days on the average with considerable variation in either direction. The so-called incubation period in poliomyelitis and the latent period in these cases of poisoning, therefore, are strikingly similar in length.
Leenhardt et al. (1951) described acrodynia in the course of three cases of acute poliomyelitis. Some authorities have considered acrodynia to be caused by a poison. Elmore (1948) reported two cases of this disease following the ingestion of mercury and Warkany and Hubbard (1951) found mercury in the urines of 38 (92.7 per cent) of 40 acrodynia patients. Meyerhofer (1939) reported that infantile acrodynia may immediately follow certain forms at atypical poliomyelitis, especially encephalomyelitis. Mercury is used as an insecticide and a fungicide and the above clinical observations indicate that it might be a factor in producing some cases of poliomyelitis.
Gougerot (1935) reported that during arsenical therapy for syphilis, poliomyelitis developed in two patients, and lethargic encephalitis followed by Parkinson's disease in one.
In 1936, during a campaign to eliminate yaws in Western Samoa by the injection of arsenicals, an epidemic of poliomyelitis appeared simultaneously. In one community all of the patients developed paralysis in the same lower limbs and buttocks in which they had received the injections and this pattern was repeated in 37 other villages, whereas there was no paralysis in uninoculated districts. The natives accused the injections as the cause of the epidemic of poliomyelitis. Most of the cases of paralysis occurred one to two weeks after the injection of the arsenic.
The foregoing reports indicate that poisons can cause poliomyelitis. It would appear that not any one poison in particular would be responsible for all cases of poliomyelitis but the effect of any one of several could produce the same ultimate result. When a disease is known to be caused by a poison, it is obvious that a search for a germ or virus in relation to it would not be made. Conversely, if a so-called virus is believed to be associated with the disease, then the possibility of poisoning as the cause of the disease would not be considered. It will be shown, moreover, that some so-called virus diseases and virus inclusions can be caused by poisons.
Dr. Robert W. Lovett of the Massachusetts State Board of health (1908), describing the epidemic of poliomyelitis in Massachusetts in 1907, and after reviewing the medical literature on experimental poliomyelitis, states: "The injection experiments prove that certain metallic poisons, bacteria and toxins have a selective action on the motor cells of the anterior cornua when present in the general circulation; that the paralysis of this type may be largely unilateral; that the posterior limbs are always more affected than the anterior; and that the lesions in the cord in such cases do not differ from those in anterior poliomyelitis." It appears to be of great importance that various poisons, lead, arsenic, mercury, cyanide, etc., found capable of causing paralysis are employed in relation to articles of food that are used for human consumption.
There are two abnormal findings in cases of poliomyelitis that point strongly to poisoning as the cause of this disease. One consists in the appearance of increased amounts of porphyrin in the urine; the other is the presence of increased amounts of guanidine in the blood. It is a well-known fact that porphyria can follow poisoning by a number of chemicals. Guanidine has been found in increased amounts in the blood in arsenic, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride poisonings.
The fact that ascorbic acid has been effective in the treatment of poliomyelitis appears justly to imply that this disease has a poison cause. Ascorbic acid has been used as a reducing agent in the treatment of poisoning resulting from a number of toxic agents, including coal tar antipyretics, nitro compounds, aniline, cyanide, benzene, lead, arsenic, etc. Paralleling these modern scientific investigations is the observation over a century ago that lime juice and lemon juice were protective against the poisoning by fish which sometimes resulted in paralysis. This early observation is perhaps the principle reason why lemon juice is customarily served today when fish are eaten.
The fact that methylene blue, another reducing agent, is effective in the treatment of poliomyelitis also points to the poison cause of this disease. Methylene blue has been used as an antidote in the treatment of nitrite, cyanide, carbon monoxide and other poisonings.
Another fact that strongly implies that human poliomyelitis is caused by a poison is found in the recent report (1951) by Dr. Irwin S. Eskwith of Bridgeport, Conn., that BAL (dimercaprol) was effective in bringing about complete recovery in a moribund 4 1/2 year-old girl with bulbar poliomyelitis. BAL counteracts the effects of poisons; it has been shown not to be effective in infectious diseases.
RELATIONSHIP OF HARVEST TO POLIOMYELITIS
[...]
In 1907, Dr. H. C. Emerson, Massachusetts State Inspector of Health, District 14, investigating an epidemic of poliomyelitis in that state, made a careful inquiry regarding the diet. No infant who was fed exclusively on the breast developed poliomyelitis. He found in six cases that fruit and berries had been a large item of the diet. In the cases of two infants, bananas and berries had been given in the diet in addition to breast milk. In three cases of poliomyelitis, the illness was attributed to the eating of large amounts of blackberries and blueberries. In one case the illness was credited to eating heartily of English mulberries. In 39 instances it was stated that food supplied were bought from fruit and vegetable peddlers in their localities.
[...]
Dingman (1916) reported a milk-borne epidemic of poliomyelitis and several similar outbreaks have been reported since then that were traceable to milk.
[...]
Chapman, raised the question of food poisoning to explain the epidemic of poliomyelitis in England in 1947, when he stated: "Is it not possible that the present prevalence of infantile paralysis may, in part at any rate, be due to some article in our restricted and modified dietary?"
[...]
Toomey and August (1932) pointed out that some authors thought that poliomyelitis is a disease of gastrointestinal origin which might follow the ingestion of foodstuffs. In 1933, they noted that the epidemic peak of poliomyelitis corresponds with the harvest peak of perishable fruits and vegetables. They called attention to the fact that the disease occurs only in those countries which raise the same type of agricultural products. Dr. C.W. Burhans, one of the colleagues of the authors, thought that green apples might be a factor in the etiology of poliomyelitis. Toomey et al. (1943) points out that there is frequently a history of dietary indiscretions previous to an attack of poliomyelitis. They suspected that a virus could be found on or in unwashed fruit or in well water during epidemics of poliomyelitis. Every year for eight years, therefore, grapes, apples, peaches, and pears were collected from the vineyards and trees in Northern Ohio at the time of the ripening. In none of their studies was the so-called virus of poliomyelitis demonstrated when the washings of the fruit or the well water were injected into experimental animals. However, no chemical tests were made to determine whether or not a chemical substance on or within the fruit or in the well water, acting by oral ingestion top produce poliomyelitis, was present.
**
The article continues with many more links between poisons and polio:
What percentage of experiments do you think Mike Stone analyzed? He analyzed less than 50 experiments out of 150 years of thousands of experiments and millions of lab work. Let's put this into perspective. Do you agree that we can discount 100% of Mike Stone's work if I show just .01% is wrong?
This is you...
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you will not look at anything whether linked to or quoted.
The argument isn't that the method is or isn't used today. The argument is Mike Stone's false implication that it is the only or even primary method. This is an example of how conspiracy theory proponents act. They pick one small thing and pretend it is everything. If you can provide evidence of Mike Stone dealing with all the science about viruses that don't rely on artificial effects, feel free to do so.
If a theory is proven wrong, the theory is modified and retested. Stone ignores all the times this was done since then. Mike Stone completely ignores the scientific method by ignoring how it has been followed since by concentrating on only an initial theory and experiment and ignoring all subsequent science.
He doesn't claim there is no evidence of viruses? That seems a rather tall tale coming from you.
Mike Stone asserts that viruses don't exist. (His consequent) Mike Stone says that a scientific experiment fails because viruses don't exist. There are many reasons for a scientific experiment to fail even if viruses exist.Alright, can you elaborate on why you think that Mike Stone is affirming the consequent? For those who are unfamiliar with this term, Wikipedia provides a helpful explanation:
**
For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not.
**
Source:
Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
To match up with the example -
It may be true that viruses not existing may cause experiments to not follow the scientific methods. It is not true, however, that failing to follow the scientific method implies that viruses don't exist. There are many other reasons for failing to not follow the scientific method that have nothing to do with the existence of viruses.
Every time Mike Stone presents an example of one experiment being done wrong he is implying that that wrong experiment shows all other experiments are wrong and viruses don't exist. Fallacious reasoning.
One small (actually its huge) problem with your argument. Galileo did the science to support his theory and prove the consensus wrong.No, no grand conspiracy. It's more like Galileo challenging the Catholic church on its view that everything revolved around the earth. As far as I know, he never accused the Catholic Church of some grand conspiracy. For its part, the Catholic church stated that Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun had no scientific basis. I think we can agree that it was Galileo that was right, but at the time, the Catholic Church had a lot of power and so Galileo was put under house arrest for voicing his beliefs on the matter. Wikipedia has an article on the matter here:
Galileo affair - Wikipedia
When it comes to viruses, only one side has actually done scientific experiments. That side is the one that is more likely to be correct based on the example of Galileo doing the science to show his theory to be correct.
The Baileys and Mike Stone have done no science at all to prove the theory of viruses wrong. They have simply relied on their own lies and fallacious reasoning. (At this point, it is clear they are lying and not just ill informed.) In the case of viruses, scientists are Galileo and you are the Catholic Church since you are relying on your denial of the science just like the Catholic Church did.
Last edited:
Wow.... Just wow.
You cite DDT as the cause but now pretend you never did any such thing.
If fertilizer was the cause in the late 1800s and early 1900s why is there no polio today in the US when the US is using 100 times the fertilizer today compared to that time period?
The claim that phosphorous fertilizer causes Polio is falsified by the fact that MN and IA use massive amounts of phosphorous fertilizer today and have no polio cases compared to 1916 when they used very little commercial phosphorous and had a polio outbreak. In 2017 IA used 390,000 metric tons of phosphorus fertilizer, MN used 303,000 metric tons of it.
Citing research from before science found the polio virus only shows that once again, you are ignoring the scientific method and relying on pseudoscience. The article you are citing is from 1952 and is a statement made to Congress by doctor complaining about lack of funds to investigate poison as the cuase. 1952? That is before the introduction of the polio vaccine which has eliminated polio in the US. The polio vaccine shows much of the article you quoted to be complete nonsense if you were to actually apply the scientific method. But once again, you show you refuse to change your theory when evidence shows your theory is wrong. Pseudoscience is all you have.
Scott
Verified User
No, it's more that I refuse to go looking for evidence that the papers you linked to are actually using the scientific method. That being said, I -have- responded to one paper you actually quoted in one of your posts. You might wish to employ that approach more often, as responding to quotes that you think are relevant is much easier than trying to guess what you think is relevant in a bunch of linked papers.
Scott
Verified User
No, you just linked to a bunch of papers. I'm not going to go rummaging through them trying to find your evidence for you. If there are passages in the papers you linked to that you believe provide the above evidence, quote them and then link to them after the quote. This is what I do for you on a regular basis.
No. You didn't respond to the paper I quoted from. You didn't critique or address anything actually in the paper. You simply recited the same garbage you always do claiming the definition of isolation was wrong in the paper because of Mike Stone. Once again, you simply rely on your fallacies. Because Mike Stone says something doesn't make it so when Mike Stone never responded to the paper in question.
This is simply circular reasoning on your part. Mike Stone said that isolation is done wrong. I show you that isolation is done in 3 different ways. You respond by saying Mike Stone says isolation is done wrong.
We are back to the silly fallacy on your part where you violate the very definition you used for viruses.
Viruses can not be isolated in the way Mike Stone says they must because viruses by definition replicate inside cells.
Scott
Verified User
You've jumped to a false conclusion. As I've said in the past, I don't know anyone who doesn't believe that bacteria exist.
I didn't say that. This is what I said: "I've definitely heard of this pseudoscientific method of "detecting" alleged biological viruses."
To give an analogy- you can, ofcourse, attribute someone being sick to malicious unicorns, but unless you actually have solid evidence that said malicious unicorns actually exist, it's pseudoscience at best.
I quoted a paper and you simply ignored the quotes. At this point you are proving you have no arguments and no critical thinking skills. You are simply a parrot.
This is where we are at.
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
You can't read. You can only recite the same things 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 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 and over and over and over and over.
Let us know when you can stop relying on the same logical fallacies.
Scott
Verified User
By your logic and arguments, bacteria can't exist. Either you don't think bacteria exist or you are completely ignorant of your own arguments and how you are applying them. By arguing that contact tracing is pseudoscientific, you have just argued that poison can't exist and bacteria can't exist. If you don't think that, then your arguments about viruses are clearly disingenuous.
Wow. You simply make up what you want to and then argue against it. At this point your fallacies are eating you alive. Contact tracing traces the spread of an infection. It doesn't "detect" what caused the illness. That is a different step entirely. Once how the illness is spread is known, then it is possible to figure out whether the likely source is a poison that dilutes in efficacy over distance or biological agent that keeps its efficacy as it spreads. When an illness doesn't decrease in efficacy as it moves from the source then it must be be able to replicate itself. That means it is biological. It is your failure to understand this that is pseudoscientific. It is willful ignorance on your part.
ROFLMAO. You can of course claim that viruses must be isolated the same way as bacteria but if you do that then to be consistent you have to also argue that humans don't exist since they can't be isolated the same way as bacteria. It is you that is guilty of the pseudoscience. Viruses are not bacteria. Humans are not bacteria. You can't demand that only viruses be treated like bacteria if you using actual logic.
Bottom line is your argument is based on the logical fallacy that viruses must behave exactly like bacteria in order to exist. But then you actually admitted that the definition of a virus shows they can't behave the same way as a bacteria. Viruses replicate inside cells. Bacteria are cells.
So, rather than admit that your argument about radiation being a possible source is clearly wrong and easily shown wrong by science you will simply ignore it and proceed to make the same argument in a couple of months.
Let's see if you are willing to be scientific or if you will stick with your pseudoscience and fallacies.
Will you commit to never arguing again that a radiation source can be the cause of an illness science attributes to viruses now that you are aware that it is easy to test for radiation?