APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

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 Detection | Food & Poison Testing Lab

Need to test for poison or toxins? The Carlson Company provides poison testing for blood, hair & food samples. Confidential results from trusted toxicology experts. Call today.

thecarlsoncompany.net

Once again, you just use pseudoscience and fallacious logic.

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.

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 Detection | Food & Poison Testing Lab

Need to test for poison or toxins? The Carlson Company provides poison testing for blood, hair & food samples. Confidential results from trusted toxicology experts. Call today.

thecarlsoncompany.net

Testing persons for poison is not what we are talking about.

Actually, you had been saying how poisons were easily tested for. I pointed out that it looked a lot more complicated then you seemed to believe.

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.

People can in fact be the source of some poisons, in the sense that bodies can store poisons. An example:

How to Detox Heavy Metals Safely (& Get More Energy)

Are you always tired? Heavy metal build-up in the body could be to blame. Learn two simple strategies to detox heavy metals safely and naturally.

wellnessmama.com

Bodies can also convert some substances into poisons as well:

What Toxins Does The Human Body Create

The body produces toxins all the time due to metabolic processes that are necessary for survival. Free radicals, unstable molecules that can cause damage to cells, are classified into acute and chronic toxicity.

trudtox.com

Other poisons can enter the body via the air, skin, digestive tract or blood.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, I've never implied that this is happening.

That is precisely why you're implying when you question the existence of biological viruses and compare virology to a nonsensical "religion".

As I've stated previously, I consider virology more like a religion, such as scientology.

Exactly. What other areas of science do you compare to science fiction?

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.

Yes, and most Christians believe their religion is the truth and Muslims believe their religion is the truth.

Religion is based on faith, not facts. Once that is established, there is no need for evidence because the believers create their own.

Neither Virology nor any other area of scientific study is based on faith. So, if biological viruses don't exist, there would be not only factual evidence that they don't exist, there would have got be an active conspiracy to convince the world they exist AND keep all virologist, pharmaceutical companies, etc ALL inline with the lie.

So, explain how that would happen.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

Correct. Once a doctor, or any medical professional, has exposed themselves as being unfit to practice (aka insane), they lose their licenses.

Of course, if there were any basis for their claims, they would provide it and save their jobs, right?

 

[ZenMode]

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.

"covid lockdowns, instead of whether biological viruses exist at all'

Correct, which is why he's still a licensed doctor. He hasn't exposed himself as being insane by questioning the existence of Covid or biological viruses in general.

 

[ZenMode]

No, no grand conspiracy.

It clearly and directly implies that one exists.

It's more like Galileo challenging the Catholic church on its view that everything revolved around the earth.

No, it's not because we are FAR more knowledgeable about viruses now than anyone was in regard to the universe in Galileo's time.

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

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, as I said above, we are significantly more knowledgeable about virology now than Galileo and especially the Catholic Church was in regarding astronomy and the universe then.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.

I didn't jump to any conclusion. It was the only logical conclusion from your statements.

Actually, you had been saying how poisons were easily tested for. I pointed out that it looked a lot more complicated then you seemed to believe.

Poisons in an environment are easy to test for once you have a group of people sick. They are also fairly easy to locate. If 100 people get ill, you look for what they all have in common. If they all drank the same water or all visited the same place you have a likely source. Poisons are almost always restricted locally or through some specific item that has been transported and available to the sick person. Examples - Chemicals leaking at Love Canal. Toilet bowl cleaner.

People can in fact be the source of some poisons, in the sense that bodies can store poisons. An example:

How to Detox Heavy Metals Safely (& Get More Energy)

Are you always tired? Heavy metal build-up in the body could be to blame. Learn two simple strategies to detox heavy metals safely and naturally.

wellnessmama.com

This is where we can easily point out why your arguments are ridiculous and pseudoscientific. In fact, simple math ends up showing that your argument is impossible.
Let's say it takes 10g of a poison to make a person sick. If a sick person has 100g of that poison in them and they secrete all of it, then that means at most they can sicken 10 other people. Those 10 people would each be at the threshold where they get sick. If they then secrete all the poison we are left with the fact that there can never be more than 10 people sick from the poison at one time assuming the impossible 100% transference.

This is where contract tracing comes into play.
By the 4th or 5th level of transmission of the poison, the poison no longer becomes effective.

________(100g)
______(50g), (50g)
__(25g),(25g),(25g),(25g)
(12g),(12g),(12g),(12g),(12g),(12g),(12g),
No one else gets sick if the poison continues to dilute as passed on.

Poison can never cause an epidemic where illness is passed from person to person for this reason.


With a biological agent that can reproduce, you can have 1,000 people sick at the same time because the cause is increasing in quantity as it replicates. That is why contract tracing can quickly rule out a poison based on location and spread. It is also why contract tracing will indicate a biological agent as the cause.

Bodies can also convert some substances into poisons as well:

What Toxins Does The Human Body Create

The body produces toxins all the time due to metabolic processes that are necessary for survival. Free radicals, unstable molecules that can cause damage to cells, are classified into acute and chronic toxicity.

trudtox.com

Converting something a person ingests to poison that makes them sick still requires an original source. This makes transference of the illness even less likely after the source is consumed and changed to poison.

Other poisons can enter the body via the air, skin, digestive tract or blood.

The poison has to exist to enter the body. As a poison dilutes it is less dangerous. A poison released into the air will disperse. A poison on the ground requires contact to that ground. A poison eaten can't be eaten by someone else. The chemicals leaking in Love Canal in NY could not make anyone in California sick.

 

[Scott]

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

Did you provide any source that said otherwise?

I definitely did. The very first source I linked to on the subject, for a start. Here's the summary of said article:
**
Story at-a-glance:

• We are told that the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case.
• There are scientists who believe that polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.
• At the time of its popularity, DDT was considered not only “safe and effective” but also good for the prevention of polio.
• However, the opposite could be true, and DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic.”

**

Source:

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

 

[Scott]

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...

What definition are you referring to?

 

[Scott]

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.

Well that's good to know.

The idiotic method they propose [snip]

Back to insulting those you disagree with. If you wanted to end this line of conversation, congratulations, you've succeeded.

 

[Scott]

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 purity The above definition for purity is taken from the FDA’s Guidance for Industry. According to...

viroliegy.com

What is balderdash is you relying on Mike Stone.

Nonsense, I know of no one who's investigated virology more than he has.

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.

Already with the insults- off to a rocky start -.-

Mike Stone has done no science.

I already responded to that assertion way back in post #329. I see that you made the same assertion again in post #336, so I responded to the same assertion once more in post #363.

 

[Scott]

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...

I responded to all of this in post #363.

 

[Scott]

Again, that's just false, since planes themselves can and do generate poisons. Some web pages that can help you see the light on this:

Welcome to Toxic Cabin Air - Toxic Cabin Air

WELCOME TO TOXIC CABIN AIR We are a website devoted to informing the public, physicians, and flight crew of the hazards of breathing in the air in the cabins of commercial airlines. We are devoted to providing you with facts about TCP, bleed air, and toxic poisoning that can occur from burnt or...

toxiccabinair.com

A silent threat in the skies: the under-reported dangers of ‘aerotoxic syndrome’

Canary guest author Monica Piccinini takes a deep dive into the controversy surrounding aerotoxic syndrome & the lack of action on it

www.thecanary.co

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

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

Planes can get on planes?

I meant to say that -poisons- can get on planes and fly half way around the globe with them.

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

Agreed. If you can provide solid evidence that anything can do that, by all means, do so.

 

[Scott]

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 [snip]

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here- surely you know that I think highly of both Sam Bailey and Mike Stone and wouldn't agree with your assertion.

 

[Scott]

Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable.

It does, by definition. From The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th edition:
**
Adjective Capable of eliciting belief or trust.
**

How nice of you to move the goalposts from unbelievable to it's antonym.

Your assertion was "Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable". I made a clear case that if someone believes something, it is by definition believable.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I definitely did. The very first source I linked to on the subject, for a start. Here's the summary of said article:
**
Story at-a-glance:

• We are told that the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case.
• There are scientists who believe that polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.
• At the time of its popularity, DDT was considered not only “safe and effective” but also good for the prevention of polio.
• However, the opposite could be true, and DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic.”

**

Source:

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

ROFLMAO.
There you go again

DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic.”

How can DDT be a major contributing factor to the polio epidemic in 1915-1917 when it was not used at all?
You are nothing if not predictable with your pseudoscientific bullshit. You are shown evidence that DDT could NOT be the cause and then claim you never said it was before you turn around and post an article that claims DDT was the cause using a 1953 article.

Why do you use old discarded science? Why do you insist using logical fallacies? Why do you insist on telling lies after you have been shown they are lies?

Let's recap how ridiculous your arguments are.
In the late 1800s Polio was caused by phosphorus fertilizer but by the late 1900s phosphorus fertilizer no longer caused polio.
In the 1950s Polio was caused by DDT but DDT stopped causing polio in 1964 even though DDT was in heavy use for another 8 years.
In 1916 ice cream caused polio and then stopped causing polio after 1918. (This one actually says there is a polio virus but certain chemicals made it more virulent.)
You don't know what caused polio in ancient Egypt but it was probably ice cream or DDT.


I really am curious how a virus that doesn't exist can exist in some of your "evidence" that viruses don't exist.

So let's simply apply Occam's razor to this problem.
Polio is caused by an ever changing list of over 30 poisons that only work to cause polio for a short period of time (10-50 years) before they stop causing it.
Polio is caused by a biological agent that hasn't changed over centuries.

It's pretty obvious which of the two is the simplest reason for Polio.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here- surely you know that I think highly of both Sam Bailey and Mike Stone and wouldn't agree with your assertion.

You were unable to refute any of my critique of Mike Stone and his use of logical fallacies.
Sam Bailey and Mike Stone have not conducted any science. Since they have no science the only logical conclusion is they are using pseudoscience.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your assertion was "Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable". I made a clear case that if someone believes something, it is by definition believable.

My assertion was "What you believe is unbelievable."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I responded to all of this in post #363.

You have not yet responded to 370 where I point out how specious your defense is.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsense, I know of no one who's investigated virology more than he has.

ROFLMAO

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

Already with the insults- off to a rocky start -.-

Care to point out what you thought was an insult?

I already responded to that assertion way back in post #329. I see that you made the same assertion again in post #336, so I responded to the same assertion once more in post #363.

Repeating the same garbage over and over isn't a response. It is simply parroting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.
Mike Stone uses circular reasoning, affirms the consequent and various other fallacies.

 

[Scott]

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.

What percentage of experiments do you think Mike Stone analyzed?

Irrelevant. You clearly don't know how falsification works. There's a passage in a book I admire that gets into it:
**
These are two classic examples of what’s called the “confirmation bias” — or cherry picking evidence. When you’re already convinced that something is true or untrue — you’re always on the lookout for additional proof (and studies) which confirms how right and smart you are.

In order to avoid this mistake and spot real science from pseudoscience, famous science philosopher Karl Popper proposed that real science should be based on the principle of “falsifiability”38 — always looking for evidence which might show that your theory is wrong.39 Let me give you an example. Let’s say you take the hypothesis “All swans are white.” To prove this statement, most people would be tempted to start counting white swans. But as Magda Havas, PhD explains, “no number of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black swan disproves it.” A much better way to go would be to use falsification, and try to find a black swan. If you look real hard and aren’t able to find a single black swan, you can feel reasonably confident that your theory (all swans are white) is right — even if it hasn’t been definitely proven just yet.
**
Source:
Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology (pp. 24-25). (Function). Kindle Edition.

Mike Stone has presented evidence for many "black swans" when it comes to the flaws in virology.