APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.”

If Mike Stone is using the definition that says it can only replicate in a host cell, why does spend so much time talking about how that definition was not used in the early 20th century? Shouldn't his arguments be based on the current definition and not a definition that was discarded by science?

the “virus” concept lacked clarity and certainty over the first half of the 20th century. However, the link between bacteriology and “viruses” was so strong at this time that these unseen entities were not considered conceptually distinct from bacteria:

Stating that viruses don't exist because outdated science that has since been discarded (because it was shown to not be accurate) can't show them to exist is pseudoscience.

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

Viruses are NOT bacteria. Since you admit that viruses are not bacteria why would you require viruses act like bacteria?
Your link contradicts itself. It claims viruses have never been isolated and then says what has been isolated has never been able to infect.
This is contradictory and then requires that isolated viruses act exactly like isolated bacteria. But you have already admitted that viruses are NOT bacteria. Requiring viruses to act like bacteria is pseudoscience.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

An argument that is bullshit is bullshit. Arguing that the sun revolves around the earth because the majority of the Catholic Church thought that in the 1400s is bullshit for the same reason that Mike Stone's arguments are bullshit. He relies on old and discarded science to make his claim.

 

[Scott]

Since you don't know how often it is used, how can you make any evaluation of the veracity of Mike Stone's claims?

Let's backtrack to Mike Stone's original claim, which you quoted in post #336 and is at the top of the nested quotes above, followed by your criticism in red. To whit:
**
This method, still used by virologists today, asserts “viral” presence based on lab-created, artificial effects observed in cultures of human and animal cells.
**

The quote was from the following article:

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."

mikestone.substack.com

In the original text, part of the text is hyperlinked, as it is above. The hyperlink goes to another of his articles, this one:

The Mirror Cytopathic Effect

Reflections of a Failed Pseudoscientific Hypothesis Science is the systematic study of the natural world. As outlined in Chapter 2 of Environmental Science, its fundamental goal is “to underst…

viroliegy.com

In that article, Mr. Stone quotes studies from 1997 and 1999, though his main focus is "Vlail Petrovich Kaznacheev—one of Russia’s leading medical scientists and founder of key research institutes"

Anyway, my point is that the article provides plenty of evidence that the foundation of virology rests on this method. I admit that I don't know how often this method is used today, but I strongly suspect that without this method, no other method would work, as you need to start somewhere with the databases of alleged viruses and this appears to be the starting point.

So you are admitting you can't make any verification of Mike Stone's claims.

I decided to do a little more reseach and have now established that the method Mike Stone describes is indeed still used to this day, including to "discover" the Cov 2 virus allegedly responsible for Covid 19. Dr. Mark Bailey and John Bevan-Smith get into the details in their essay "The Covid-19 Fraud and the war on Humanity". Quoting from it:
**
VIROLOGY’S DOUBLE DECEPTION

The COVID-19 crime against humanity requires the absence of this virus so there is nomaterial reference against which the make-believe genome can be cross-checked, toestablish, for instance, whether or not the purported SARS-CoV-2 proteins specificallystem from the alleged virus.

This illusory trick relies on virology’s double deception: (a) the substitution of thedictionary and scientifically postulated meaning of the noun isolation for its opposite;and (b) the substitution of the fake proxy of inducing cytopathic effects (CPEs) byinoculating typically abnormal cell lines in vitro for the postulated proxy of infecting ahealthy or non-diseased host in vivo to establish causality between the purportedpathogen and the disease. However, even using “normal” cell lines would notestablish causality by Koch’s postulates or any other scientific postulates, as they aresimply test tube observations involving alleged viruses.

This double deception constitutes a violation of postulates on which the scientificcommunity has long depended. This physical absence makes of SARS-CoV-2 a fail-safe fraud, one that industry-funded virologists applaud and one that the medico-pharmaceutical complex both exploits and rewards. So obscure is this black art and so arcane its language that few among the general public would stop to question it. Even Stephen Bustin, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) expert and creator of the MIQE protocols designed to tame the RT-PCR “Wild West”, falls for this virological fraud, ashe revealed in his interview with Eric Coppolino:

Eric Coppolino (EFC): But there’s two different definitions of isolation goingaround though. One is that you separate it from all else, and the other is thatyou put it into a broth and you find it.​

Stephen Bustin (SB): Yeah. Well, that’s not really my area of expertise. As faras I’m concerned, I’ve read the papers and if that’s the standard way ofisolating a pathogen, so I have no problems with that.​

​

EFC: Well, it’s the current way that’s used, I would say, that the idea of truepurification you separate it into centrifuge, and you know you’ve got a sampleof only that. And then that is the thing that is sequenced and then used to prime the PCR. It does not appear that that’s what’s happening ...

SB: Well, the way the sequence was established by taking the samples from the original patient growing up something and then sequencing it and then disassembling the sequence and what came out of that was the SARS virus.19 Which then very closely resembled a bat SARS virus. And was obviously adifferent one. So, that ... Well, you know, this is a standard way of doing this so I really can’t comment any further on that, except that to me that’s perfectly acceptable and that’s the way to do it.20​

**

 

[Scott]

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?

Not all of them did. Ever since the inception of germ theory over a century ago, there has been some resistance. Mike Stone gets into this in articles such as this one:

An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory

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

mikestone.substack.com

He also just came out with an article that gets into the methodological flaws inherent in the alleged discovery of the very first biological virus. The free part can be seen here:

TMV: The First "Virus"

Shattering the Mosaic: How TMV Became Virology’s First Illusion

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

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.

Allegedly, yes. The problem is that the very foundations of virology are pseudoscientific. Thus, by definition, anything built or "discovered" on such a foundation is also by definition pseudoscientific.

 

[Scott]

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 [snip]

What we can look at are microbes. What there is no solid evidence for is that some of those microbes have the properties that biological viruses are said to have. As I've said before, there is no need for a "grand conspiracy". All that's needed is for most people not to understand how the scientific method works- and for those that do, to not try to apply it to virology. For those who both understand the scientific method and apply it to virology, the illusion dissolves.

 

[Scott]

I'm also wondering how they fake all the deaths from viruses.

Deaths aren't faked, just their causes. Some journalists caught on to this near the start of the alleged Covid 19 pandemic. This article, for instance:

ISS Report: 99% of Covid19 Deaths had Pre-existing Serious Illness

Kit Knightly Anything up to 99.2% of all of Italy’s recent Covid19-associated deaths could have been caused by pre-existing chronic conditions, according to a report released by the Istituto …

off-guardian.org

 

[Scott]

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.

An unsubstantiated assertion. You're welcome to try to substantiate it.

 

[Scott]

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

No, visibile evidence of red dots and rashes from -something-. Biological viruses are not required for such skin eruptions to take place.

• All other symptoms related to many viral infections such as:
  • Fever
  • Coughing
  • Sore throat
  • Runny nose
  • Body ache
  • Fever/chills
  • vomiting
  • Diarrhea
  • Sneezing
  • Death

None of those symptoms require biological viruses- there are alternative explanations for all of them.

• In the case of HIV, there was also weight loss and various lesions and eventually death

There's a page dedicated to pointing out how HIV is a hoax. It can be seen here:

The Big Virus Hoax

thebigvirushoax.com

• 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

The way most covid "infections" were "tracked" was through PCR tests. Even amoung those who still believe in biological viruses, there are those who point out how PCR tests are scientifically meaningless:

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby &#8…

off-guardian.org

 

[Scott]

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

It's funny how you leaped to PCR tests and didn't quote any of the rest of my post.

I was trying to figure out why you thought I "didn't know a thing about science." Anyway, let's continue with your post.

Is a PCR test used to test for quarks?

Nope.

Is a PCR test used to test for bacteria?

I doubt it. Bacteria can actually be truly isolated, unlike alleged biological viruses.

Do you have to know quark exists before you find it?

Nope.

Do you have to know that a bacteria type exists before testing to find it?

As I said before, bacteria can be isolated in the common meaning of the term, so no, you can simply find them underneath a microscope.

For that matter, did anyone have to know that the Higgs Boson particle existed before testing for it?

No, particle accelerators can find new particles, though people certainly believed that they -would- find the Higgs Boson.

 

[Scott]

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?

You should know by now that I haven't found any solid evidence that biological viruses exist. Therefore, the logical conclusion should be that I don't believe any biological viruses are involved in the polio epidemics.

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.

That's right.

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

The argument that I presented a while back, which wasn't even my theory, but Tessa Lena's (who herself came to that conclusion after reading from her own sources) is that DDT was probably -one- of the causes of polio. So in some cases, it could have been a cause, or the sole cause, and in other cases, it could have been something else. Because I have seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist, that leaves other toxins, such as arsenic.

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

It's certainly a simple question. It's the answer that's hard. The short answer is I'm not sure. The longer answer: due to the evidence that other toxins, such as arsenic, look like they could also have caused polio, I suspect that DDT was not the sole cause of polio between 1940 and 1960, but may well have been the principal cause.

 

[Scott]

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.

No, we just have different views of what constitutes solid evidence. You also tend to quote from your sources a lot less, which means I tend to read your sources a lot less.

 

[Scott]

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.

Quote him saying that he has discarded the possibility that the polio virus doesn't exist and you'd have a case.

 

[Scott]

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

If Mike Stone is using the definition that says it can only replicate in a host cell, why does spend so much time talking about how that definition was not used in the early 20th century?

Does he really spend so much time talking about how that definition was not used in the early 20th century? I suspect that, if anything, I may have focused on 1 or 2 articles where he brings that up and you may have come to the conclusion that he spends a lot of time on that. Mike Stone has written a lot of articles, most of which I haven't quoted or referenced.

the “virus” concept lacked clarity and certainty over the first half of the 20th century. However, the link between bacteriology and “viruses” was so strong at this time that these unseen entities were not considered conceptually distinct from bacteria:

Stating that viruses don't exist because outdated science that has since been discarded (because it was shown to not be accurate) can't show them to exist is pseudoscience.

As far as I know, he never said what you think he said. He simply pointed out that during the first half of the 20th century, the virus concept "lacked clarity".

 

[ZenMode]

Not all of them did. Ever since the inception of germ theory over a century ago, there has been some resistance. Mike Stone gets into this in articles such as this one:

An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory

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

mikestone.substack.com

He also just came out with an article that gets into the methodological flaws inherent in the alleged discovery of the very first biological virus. The free part can be seen here:

TMV: The First "Virus"

Shattering the Mosaic: How TMV Became Virology’s First Illusion

mikestone.substack.com

So, what percentage of those involved pushed back on the grand conspiracy?

 

[ZenMode]

Allegedly, yes. The problem is that the very foundations of virology are pseudoscientific. Thus, by definition, anything built or "discovered" on such a foundation is also by definition pseudoscientific.

Right, but in order to even CLAIM a new virus, i.e. HIV, exists requires the buy-in and silence of tens of thousands of people, right?

 

[ZenMode]

Deaths aren't faked, just their causes. Some journalists caught on to this near the start of the alleged Covid 19 pandemic. This article, for instance:

ISS Report: 99% of Covid19 Deaths had Pre-existing Serious Illness

Kit Knightly Anything up to 99.2% of all of Italy’s recent Covid19-associated deaths could have been caused by pre-existing chronic conditions, according to a report released by the Istituto …

off-guardian.org

Those aren't fake deaths. It was known early on that people who were old, fat or had co-morbidities were more likely to die. It's no different than the seasonal flu being more likely to kill the very old or very young. How is it that you are so uninformed about such basics of vital infections?

 

[ZenMode]

No, visibile evidence of red dots and rashes from -something-. Biological viruses are not required for such skin eruptions to take place.



None of those symptoms require biological viruses- there are alternative explanations for all of them.



There's a page dedicated to pointing out how HIV is a hoax. It can be seen here:

The Big Virus Hoax

thebigvirushoax.com

The way most covid "infections" were "tracked" was through PCR tests. Even amoung those who still believe in biological viruses, there are those who point out how PCR tests are scientifically meaningless:

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby &#8…

off-guardian.org

"No, visibile evidence of red dots and rashes from -something-"

ok. What is "something "? When you put a measles infected kid close to another one, there's a very good chance it spreads. What spreads? How?

So, again, you are alleging tens of thousands of people, at least, all involved. Not only virologists but those who you claim are associating well-known symptoms of viruses, like red dots from measles, with something else. I mean, the entirety of the medical world who is, for example, diagnosing, testing, confirming and vaccinating for measles has to be in on the lie. They have to have gone through medical school, by the millions over the decades, and have never said a word.

The hundreds of years of variations of seasonal flu is just a hoax, so, again, the medical world, in unison, are onboard. Not to mention everyone involved in clinical trials and development/testing of PCR tests.

I mean, you HAVE to see how absolutely insane this sounds, right?

 

[Scott]

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

Viruses are NOT bacteria. Since you admit that viruses are not bacteria why would you require viruses act like bacteria?

I have never said that alleged biological viruses need to act like bacteria. The issue has always been whether there is any valid scientific evience that biologival viruses exist. I have found none.

Your link contradicts itself. It claims viruses have never been isolated and then says what has been isolated has never been able to infect.

Could you quote what you're referring to, along with the link in question?

 

[Scott]

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.

An argument that is [insults removed]

Again, if you think that an argument is flawed, just say that. Using invective just stirs up emotions and tends to shut down productive discussion.