APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

Science requires you to change your theory if you can't support it.

Certainly, so long as there are better theories out there.

The theory about viruses has change over the last 100 years.

True.

Mike Stone insists we use the discarded scientific theories from 100 years ago.

False.

Mike Stone is not following the scientific method since he refuses to even look (observe) any science since the experiments he claim are flawed.

Mike Stone has said that one method he has looked at is still used today. I haven't seen any evidence that this isn't true. However, if you'd like to look at a critique of the method used to allegedly discover the Cov 2 virus, which is alleged to be the cause of Covid 19, you can take a look at the following essay from Dr. Mark Bailey:

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

If it looks familiar, that's because I've quoted and referenced it often in the thread we used to debate in. For the audience, that thread is here:

Thread 'Settling the Biological Virus Debate'

Dec 23, 2022

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement...

• Scott
• Replies: 1,325
• Forum: General Politics Forum

 

[Scott]

By your logic and arguments, bacteria can't exist.

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.

Let the record show that my logic has led me to conclude that bacteria exist, Saunders' assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[ZenMode]

No, all that's needed is for most people to either not understand how the scientific method works or, if they do, to not check to see whether virology actually adheres to it.

But you're talking about every college student studying virology/biology. Every person directly involved in the development of vaccines. Every doctor administering a vaccine. You believe that they just coincidentally stayed on the same page for decades?

 

[ZenMode]

Again, I think that really depends on the religion in question, and perhaps even more importantly, individuals within that religion. Albert Einstein was nominally jewish, but he was also making great progress in the scientific field. I would be very surprised if his scientific discoveries didn't affect his religious views.

Beside the point. New viruses are being discovered regularly. There are no new Biblical books being discovered. What you're claiming is that HIV, SARS Cov-2 were ideas conjured up by someone(s) and not one virologists, biologist, person involved in vaccine development or doctor...not ONE...said anything. Even the doctor YOU referenced, who disputed lockdowns, acknowledged that viruses exist. Again, you referenced him as someone to support your beliefs and he quite literally did the opposite.

 

[Damocles]

Beside the point. New viruses are being discovered regularly. There are no new Biblical books being discovered. What you're claiming is that HIV, SARS Cov-2 were ideas conjured up by someone(s) and not one virologists, biologist, person involved in vaccine development or doctor...not ONE...said anything. Even the doctor YOU referenced, who disputed lockdowns, acknowledged that viruses exist. Again, you referenced him as someone to support your beliefs and he quite literally did the opposite.

Remember how many must be involved in this grand conspiracy, literally hundreds of governments, some of which cannot agree on the color of the sky when pressed... but they can agree to "trick" the whole planet that things you can actually look at exist, then every single scientist, including his own... literally everyone in medical science... All these people got together to trick people into thinking that stuff Scott doesn't want to believe in exists... and only Scott and his pal who knows that viruses exist but Scott thinks is a genius that doesn't think they exist, only those two are special enough to understand the "Truth"...

 

[ZenMode]

Remember how many must be involved in this grand conspiracy, literally hundreds of governments, some of which cannot agree on the color of the sky when pressed... but they can agree to "trick" the whole planet that things you can actually look at exist, then every single scientist, including his own... literally everyone in medical science... All these people got together to trick people into thinking that stuff Scott doesn't want to believe in exists... and only Scott and his pal who knows that viruses exist but Scott thinks is a genius that doesn't think they exist, only those two are special enough to understand the "Truth"...

Exactly. I'm also wondering how they fake all the deaths from viruses. So, this worldwide secret "group" of virus conspirators aren't just perpetuating a lie of historical biological viruses, they are conspiring to create new virus (HIV and SARS Cov-2) and apparently killing millions of people to really sell the lie? I wonder how that mass killing would work? I wonder how they convinced Freddy Mercury to play along?

"Ok, so we are create a virus called Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Where is it going to begin? Ideas anyone?"

Meeting participant raises hand: "How about.....China?"

Another meeting participant raises hand: "No no, no! We already have SARS Cov-2 planned for China! Come on, Bob! Pull your head out of your ass. How about Africa?"

 

[Scott]

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.

I suspect the issue here is your faith in PCR tests. Dr. Mark Bailey does a good takedown of this alleged way to "test" for people having the alleged Cov 2 virus in his "A Farewell to Virology" essay, starting on page 44. It's here if you're intererested:

A Farewell To Virology

Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease, yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing.

drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

ROFLMAO

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.

Oh.. so now DDT was never the cause of polio?

Why is so hard for you to absorb what I say? At this point, all I can do is simply repeat what I've said before if only to refute what you're saying. To whit:
"For the audience, I will once again repeat that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio."

I also haven't said that there's proof that DDT was one of the causes, though I think the evidence that it was is compelling. Again, for the audience, a good chunk of this evidence can be found here:

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]

So, rather than admit that your argument about radiation being a possible source is clearly wrong [snip]

Hold on a second there. Possible source of what?

Did you suddenly think viruses exist?

As I've said many times, I have seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. I think I also now understand what you meant by "being a possible source". Did you mean being a possible source of a pandemic?

 

[Scott]

There was more than one polio epidemic. While you're right that there was one between 1915-1917, the larger one was between around 1940 and 1960. That's the one where DDT may have played a decisive role. As to what caused the polio epidemic off 1915-17 in the U.S., it looks like other pesticides, such as arsenic, were to blame. There's a long article on this which can be found here:

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

You mean the article that says this?

The Age of Polio, an epidemic he believed was a result of environmental toxins triggering the virus.

That's the one.

It seems you now want to argue there is evidence of viruses existing.

No, I don't.

Note that the author seems to believe that the polio virus is real and did do some of the damage, though he also admits it's possible it's not at the end.

The author admits no such thing. He simple recognizes that one of the critiques of his co-factor argument is that the virus doesn't exist. Stating that others are saying something is not admitting it is possible. It simply recognizes that people are saying it.

I certainly agree that simply saying something is not admitting it's possible. However, I think you're over reaching when you imply that the author doesn't believe it's possible that polio virus doesn't actually exist. In any case, I'll quote what the author actually said and let the audience decide for themselves as to what the author meant:
**
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

As for myself, I clearly believe this is the most likely scenario.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Let the record show that my logic has led me to conclude that bacteria exist, Saunders' assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

Let the record show that you don't actually use logic since you make your criteria situational rather than universal.

 

[ZenMode]

As I've said many times, I have seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.

No solid evidence except:

• Visible evidence of viral infections - ie red dots from measles and chicken pox and rashes
• All other symptoms related to many viral infections such as:
  • Fever
  • Coughing
  • Sore throat
  • Runny nose
  • Body ache
  • Fever/chills
  • vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Sneezing
  • Death
• In the case of HIV, there was also weight loss and various lesions and eventually death
• All of the data tracking the spread of viral infections and associated deaths
• All of the data showing the impact of vaccines in decreasing viral infections

But, yep, no evidence at all. It's all a grand conspiracy to fool the world

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I suspect the issue here is your faith in PCR tests. Dr. Mark Bailey does a good takedown of this alleged way to "test" for people having the alleged Cov 2 virus in his "A Farewell to Virology" essay, starting on page 44. It's here if you're intererested:

A Farewell To Virology

Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease, yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing.

drsambailey.com

It's funny how you leaped to PCR tests and didn't quote any of the rest of my post.
Is a PCR test used to test for quarks?
Is a PCR test used to test for bacteria?

Do you have to know quark exists before you find it?
Do you have to know that a bacteria type exists before testing to find it?
For that matter, did anyone have to know that the Higgs Boson particle existed before testing for it?

This is a simple application of your logic to be used universally. If it is correct then it can be applied in all situations.
Do you have to know something exists before you can test for it? yes/no
No more deflections. Just answer the question. This is some simple science. You hypothesized that something can't be found unless you know it exists. Is that hypothesis correct? Or do you want to modify it or abandon it?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Why is so hard for you to absorb what I say? At this point, all I can do is simply repeat what I've said before if only to refute what you're saying. To whit:
"For the audience, I will once again repeat that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio."

I also haven't said that there's proof that DDT was one of the causes, though I think the evidence that it was is compelling. Again, for the audience, a good chunk of this evidence can be found here:

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

If DDT was not the only cause are you saying that the cause was a virus that DDT made more virulent which is similar to the paper you linked to for fertilizer in the 1910s where the virus exists but the fertilizer made it more virulent?

This is simple logic.
Either DDT was the SOLE cause in some cases or DDT only helped to amplify another cause in some case and the actual cause was something else.

You don't get to argue that DDT was a cause and DDT was NOT a cause. That argument is ridiculous.


Simple question for you. Was DDT the sole cause for polio symptoms in the majority of the cases in the 1950s to early 1960s?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As I've said many times, I have seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. I think I also now understand what you meant by "being a possible source". Did you mean being a possible source of a pandemic?

As you have repeatedly shown us. You have seen no solid evidence because you simply refuse to look at any evidence.

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

Let's examine your position using the scientific method to show you are simply using pseudoscience.

Scott's hypothesis - I have seen no evidence of the existence of biological viruses.
Scientific method - Make observations or conduct experiments to try to falsify hypothesis
Scott's method - Refuse to look at almost everything that would show the hypothesis to be wrong.

Poor Richard Saunders hypothesis - Scott is relying on pseudoscience for his position
Scientific method - Observe if Scott is following the scientific method.
Observation - Scott refuses to do anything to actually test his hypothesis as would be required by the scientific method.
Conclusion - The hypothesis that Scott is relying on pseudoscience is likely correct based on extensive observation of well over a year.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's the one.



No, I don't.



I certainly agree that simply saying something is not admitting it's possible. However, I think you're over reaching when you imply that the author doesn't believe it's possible that polio virus doesn't actually exist. In any case, I'll quote what the author actually said and let the audience decide for themselves as to what the author meant:
**
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

As for myself, I clearly believe this is the most likely scenario.

OMFG. You seem to be unable to read or understand..

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."

Then you completely ignore the earlier part of that section. The author in no way accepts the theory that the virus doesn't exist. He is willing to accept critiques and use them to strengthen his argument.

My aim is simple: to make an overwhelming case that arsenic was a co-factor in poliomyelitis outbreaks, and then to see what that tells us about not just polio but any number of things. The series to date presented evidence that the outbreak in New York City and the North Atlantic states in 1916 was triggered by arsenic pesticide from a Hawaiian sugar plantation that got into the food supply in the Northeast.


Those who take issue with the scenario I’ve presented – and I welcome the critiques because they make me stop and think – seem to have four different arguments:

If anything the author is more willing to accept that it is the virus alone that causes Polio when he cites Occam's razor being raised by the commenter Eindecker.

 

[Scott]

Irrelevant. I could also say that you have been "unable to refute any of my critiques" of your assertions, and it would be equally irrelevant. The important thing here isn't whether we can refute each other's beliefs, but rather whether we think it's worth spending additional time to try to persuade each other and/or audience members that our different beliefs are right or at least worth considering.

You haven't provided any evidence I find to be credible that Mike Stone has engaged in any logical fallacies.

They have examined various claims by virologists, as well as various experiments said virologists have used to justify those claims and found those experiments to be wanting, as do I.

Since I have provided no evidence you find credible that Mike Stone has engaged in logical fallacies I will give you an opportunity to tell us what his premise is. What is the premise from which Mike Stone is working?
Is it accurate to say that Mike Stone's premise is that viruses should act like bacteria? Yes/No - Explain

No. Mike Stone, along with the other signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" 2 page statement, quoted and referenced in the opening post of this thread, makes it clear that they are using the textbook definition of biological viruses, straight from a standard textbook, Molecular Cell Biology, 4th Edition, to be precise. That definition is as follows:
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”

Source:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

From what I've read, the key difference between alleged biological viruses and bacteria is in how they replicate. Using the standard definition of biological viruses above, bio viruses can -only- replicate/reproduce in a "susceptible host cell". Bacteria, by contrast, primarily replicate using binary fission, with a few having alternate forms of replication, but I've seen no mention of any of them reproducing within a host cell. For details on the methods of bacteria replication/reproduction, I found this page to be useful:

How Do Bacteria Reproduce? - Sciencing

Bacteria are single-celled microbes, and are one of the simplest forms of life on earth. Containing just a single chromosome of DNA, they lack a nucleus or other organelles found in most eukaryotic cells. To replicate, bacteria undergo the process of binary fission, where a bacteria cell grows...

www.sciencing.com

 

[Scott]

My assertion was "What you believe is unbelievable."

You've made multiple unsubstantiated assertions over the years. I was addressing your "Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable" one. In case you're skeptical you actually said something so brash, it's in the following post:

P

APP - Post in thread 'Do biological viruses actually exist?'

Monday at 11:07 AM

You've changed the goal posts. First, you said that what I believe is unbelievable. This was obviously false because I believe it. Now you're arguing that what someone believes "doesn't mean it is logical or even possible". I agree with that statement, but that's not how this conversation started out.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable. Your belief is incredible, astonishing, extraordinary, and extreme. What you believe is unbelievable. Your attempt to use the equivocation fallacy fails.


unbelievable

Definitions...

• Poor Richard Saunders

Wow...
You don't seem to understand the the word UNBELIEVABLE is what is defined in my post [snip]

I'm not going to go back and forth on this. I think I addressed one of your unsubstantiated assertions quite well. I'm not going to play whack a mole with all the variants of said unsubstantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

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 -.-

Care to point out what you thought was an insult?

The last word in the quote I was responding to- it's in the nested quotes above.

Calling an argument by Mike Stone that is bullshit [snip]

For starters, you're making the unsubstantiated assertion that an argument from Mike Stone is false. If you'd just said it was false, we could have perhaps gotten into why you felt that way. But instead, you decided to use a word that you've used yet again. It's these types of words that tend to kill productive discussions. If that's your goal, then you're on the right track. If it's not, then stop using such words.

 

[Scott]

What evidence has Mike Stone provided that the theory of viruses is wrong?

The following article come to mind:

An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory

The germ “theory:" a scientific foundation or a logical fallacy?

mikestone.substack.com

Let's examine the scientific method.
The scientific method is this -

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-507-w.pdf

State the problem
Form a hypothesis
Observe and Experiment
Interpret Data
Draw Conclusions
(Revise the hypothesis as needed and repeat)

Do you agree that this is the scientific method? Do you agree that something that fails to use this method is conducting pseudoscience?

I believe so. I'd like to say that I like this approach. The signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement have made it clear that they don't believe that virology's foundation is based on the scientific method. I think really delving into what the steps of the scientific method may eventually lead to a breakthrough in our discussion. One can hope.