APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

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.

I'm sure the Catholic church could have said much the same thing about the sun revolving around the earth. Much more advanced than that outdated Copernicus who first came up with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun.

 

[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 Testing Lab

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

thecarlsoncompany.net

Once again, you just use pseudoscience and fallacious logic.

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.

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

Feel free to try to explain your logic.

 

[Scott]

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.

I can't speak for environments, but detecting poisons in people isn't always easy. From the article I linked to previously:
**

Q 3:​

A: Certain poisons, such as some heavy metals or plant-based toxins, can be challenging to detect due to their low concentrations or unique chemical properties. However, advancements in analytical techniques have significantly improved the ability to identify even trace amounts of various toxins. It’s crucial to consult with toxicology experts and utilize state-of-the-art testing methods for accurate detection.
**

The same website makes it clear that trying to determine whether someone has been poisoned is at times best done with guidance:
**

Q 5: What is the name of the Poison test?​

A: The specific test for poison detection depends on the suspected toxin. Common tests include immunoassays, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The choice of test is determined by the type of poison and the required sensitivity of the analysis. Consultation with a toxicology expert or healthcare professional can guide the selection of the most appropriate test for a given situation.
**

 

[ZenMode]

I'm going to assume you meant "That is precisely -what- you're implying...". In any case, I don't understand why you think that my comparing virology to scientology implies that I think that there's some grand conspiracy to "keep the lies going".

Because there has to be a conspiracy to keep the alleged lie of biological viruses going. That's why you compare a religion to a science - to demonstrate how people can be lead to believe lies in large numbers.

As I've mentioned in the past, there are thousands of religious sects in the world- that doesn't mean that everyone is 'keeping the lies going'. People just believe a lot of different things despite the lack of evidence for many of those things.

For a variety of reasons, people can be lead to believe nonsensical things. Religion is a great example. In the case of religion, people are inclined to believe/have faith for a variety of reasons. It feels good to believe that an all-powerful being is floating in space, watching over you, designing a path for you through life and hoping the best for you, while planning an eternity of bliss when you die....and all you have to do is have faith that this being exists! So easy!

However, unlike science, there's nothing new being discovered in religion. Same old books, same old stories all written by scientifically ignorant men who couldn't explain where the sun went at night and thought burying dead mammals under buildings would bring good luck.

The science of virology is absolutely nothing like any religion. There are new discoveries happening all the time. Those discoveries change the scientific views of viruses and make us more intelligent in regard to viruses. Unlike religion, there's no "feel good" aspect to virology. Scientists aren't inclined to blindly believe documentation from hundreds years ago because in any given minute, past documentation can be easily verified or disproven. That is not true with religion. Yes, science has repeatedly put a beat down on the claims of religious books, but there's ultimately no way to sufficiently prove God's don't exist enough to completely eliminate religion.

I've brought up HIV a couple of times. Like other viruses, virologists have identified, studied and developed treatments for HIV. The measles virus used to kill hundreds of thousands of people a year. Science identified and developed a vaccine for the measles virus. Are you denying that the visible symptom of measles, little red dots, exist? Do you believe that the measles vaccine is all a big lie being propagated, decade after decade, by the entirety of the scientific world, from virology to the doctor administering the measles vaccine?

You keep saying that you aren't claiming a grand conspiracy. If that's true then explain how the lie of the measles virus stays alive without a grand conspiracy. And no, comparing biology to religion, while saying "well people just believe things sometimes", is not a sufficient answer.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're changing the goalposts. Your original claim was "the fact that there were failues in the claims doesn't disprove viruses". I simply pointed out that Mike Stone never made that claim. Now, if we take away the double negative, you are asking if he claims that there is evidence for biological viruses. I think we can agree that he is consistent in saying that he sees no solid evience for their existence. I hope you realize that there is a difference between claiming that there is no solid evidence for something and proving that something doesn't exist. Put another way- I've seen no solid evidence that unicorns exist. That's not the same thing as saying that I have proven that they don't exist.

Now you are just being disingenuous. Mike Stone goes far beyond just stating there is no evidence that viruses exist. Mike Stone accuses science of fraud and not following the scientific method. Mike Stone simply cherry picks a few things to try to claim there is no evidence while ignoring the majority of the evidence that shows viruses exist. Mike Stone uses multiple logical fallacies to try to show that viruses don't exist. Mike Stone uses circular reasoning in that he declares that viruses should act like bacteria and then when they don't act like bacteria he uses that as his basis for saying there is no evidence.

If Mike Stone says Virology is a lie, Intro to ViroLIEgy, why do you consider that he is just saying that there is no evidence? He is saying the existence of viruses is a lie. He is certainly implying exactly the thing you say he doesn't.

But lets examine Mike Stone's fallacy. He starts with the assumption that viruses are bacteria and have to act exactly like bacteria.
Mike Stone is using pseudoscience. He starts with this premise about viruses.

• The lack of purification and isolation of the particles claimed to be “viruses”
• The pseudoscientific nature of cell culture experiments
• The importance of satisfying Koch’s Postulates
• The reliance on indirect evidence (e.g., cell cultures, electron microscopy images, “antibodies,” and genomes)

When his premise fails, rather than changing his theory as required by the scientific method he simply assumes he is correct. His entire premise is based on faulty logic and pseudoscience.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Both sides have done experiments- the main issue is which ones followed the scientific methodology.

ROFLMAO.
What experiments has Mike Stone done?
What experiments has Sam Bailey done?
Since they have done no experiments can we both agree that Mike Stone and Sam Bailey are not using the scientific method?
The scientific method requires you to abandon or change your theory if it is not supported by observation or experiment.

I have already written a post getting into the evidence that many experiments conducted by virologists weren't following the scientific method in post #343. In essence, virology has metaphorically posited that there are only white swans, while Mike Stone and others have pointed out the many black swans in their methodology.

Many experiments about gravity had the wrong assumptions, does that mean there is no evidence of gravity?
Many experiments about light had wrong assumptions, does that mean there is no evidence of light?
Mike Stone has not pointed to any black swans. He has simply said we should ignore the way science works.

Science requires you to change your theory if you can't support it. The theory about viruses has change over the last 100 years. Mike Stone insists we use the discarded scientific theories from 100 years ago. It is Mike Stone that is not following the scientific method since he refuses to use or accept any changes in the science of viruses.

Mike Stone is practicing pseudoscience since he continues to rely on an abandoned theory as the basis for his arguments that the science is wrong. Mike Stone is not following the scientific method since he refuses to even look (observe) any science since the experiments he claim are flawed.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've just told you that I don't know -anyone- who doesn't believe that bacteria exist.

This is about logic and how you don't use it. The fact that people believe in bacteria doesn't affect your logic. Either your logic is good and can be applied equally or it is flawed and can't be applied equally. Clearly you agree that your logic is flawed since you keep saying bacteria exist.

This



Again, you really have to play closer attention to what I actually say. Here's what I -actually- said, in post #344:
"I've definitely heard of this pseudoscientific method of "detecting" alleged biological viruses."

It's pseudoscientific because there is no scientific evidence that biological viruses exist. I have never said that bacteria don't exist, let alone poisons.

ROFLMAO. You don't know the first thing about science. You have just said science can't test for anything if they don't already know it exists.
There was no evidence that quarks exist before we experimented and found the first quark
There was no evidence that bacteria existed before we found the first bacteria.
Viruses were found to exist just like bacteria and quarks were found to exist. Something was observed and theories were formed and experiments were conducted to test the theories. If the experiments failed then new or revised theories were formed and more experiments were conducted. If those experiments filed then new or again revised theories were formed and more experiments were conducted. This was repeated until a theory was shown to be close to being correct. Even then, experiments and theory revisions can occur.

Mike Stone only looks at the first theory and experiments and then ignores the rest of the scientific method in his pseudoscientific BS.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You really need to be more careful when it comes to reading my posts. For the audience, I will once again repeat that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio.

ROFLMAO

Oh.. so now DDT was never the cause of polio?
Perhaps you should read then respond to the rest of my post which you purposely ignored.
Why did DDT only cause polio for a couple of decades?
Why did phosphorus fertilizer only cause polio for a couple of decades?
Why did they both STOP causing polio?
The problem is you demand the scientific method and then you completely ignore the scientific method.

If DDT could cause polio then it should always cause polio. It can't suddenly stop causing polio in 1964.
If phosphorus fertilizer can cause polio then why did it stop causing polio? More phosphorus fertilizer is in use today than at any time before 1950.
Not only do your arguments fail any application of the scientific method they fail any application of simple logic.

Poisons don't suddenly out of the blue stop being poisons for no reason. Your arguments about DDT become laughable when examined with actual data. Polio stopped occurring in 1964 with a vaccine for a virus. DDT was used heavily until 1972. You have no explanation for why DDT stopped causing polio. You only have an idiotic deflection that it wasn't the only cause. The data shows it was not likely to be the cause because the use doesn't completely coincide with the outbreaks. As I have stated before, the Yankees winning the world series more closely aligns with the polio outbreaks than DDT does.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hold on a second there. Possible source of what?

Did you suddenly think viruses exist?
Viruses cause all kinds of diseases and not just in humans. Viruses cause plant disease. Viruses cause disease in all animal life. Bird flu is caused by a virus.
You have not shown one of those illnesses that could possibly be caused by radiation. The way radiation works disproves any claim that it is the cause of a virus illness.