APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

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?

Always with this "grand conspiracy". As I've said before, I see virology more like a religion. Just because people believe in a religion that has flaws in it (which, unless you believe in multiple realities is most if not all of them) doesn't mean that they are involved in a "grand conspiracy". They just believe some things that aren't true.

 

[Scott]

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?

No. All that's required is for people believe that the pseudoscientific foundations of virology are true. Again, religions offer a good blueprint for how people can believe in things that aren't true.

 

[Scott]

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.

I just said they weren't fake deaths.

It was known early on that people who were old, fat or had co-morbidities were more likely to die.

Yes. Have you noticed that this was true before the alleged Cov 2 virus as well?

It's no different than the seasonal flu being more likely to kill the very old or very young.

The flu is another excellent example, as it's also an alleged virus. Something I and friends noticed when Covid was in full swing was that the flu seemed to all but disappear during that time. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Scott]

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?

Mike Stone wrote an article that deals specifically with measles. You may wish to take a look:

Measles Magic

Pulling back the curtain.

mikestone.substack.com

 

[ZenMode]

Always with this "grand conspiracy". As I've said before, I see virology more like a religion. Just because people believe in a religion that has flaws in it (which, unless you believe in multiple realities is most if not all of them) doesn't mean that they are involved in a "grand conspiracy". They just believe some things that aren't true.

Yes, it has to be when you consider the number of people who would have to be involved to perpetuate the lie you are claiming, for decades upon decades, it has to be a conspiracy.

 

[ZenMode]

No. All that's required is for people believe that the pseudoscientific foundations of virology are true.

Right, again, we're talking med/biology majors acrpss the globe, virologists across the globe, doctors across the globe, vaccine developers across the globe, government health departments across the globe..... ALL of them have to never question anything and/or ALL keep their mouths shut. All of them. Keep in mind that Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton, two people, couldn't keep a secret. You're talking about generation upon generation of people.

That seems reasonable to you?

Again, religions offer a good blueprint for how people can believe in things that aren't true.

 

[ZenMode]

I just said they weren't fake deaths.



Yes. Have you noticed that this was true before the alleged Cov 2 virus as well?



The flu is another excellent example, as it's also an alleged virus. Something I and friends noticed when Covid was in full swing was that the flu seemed to all but disappear during that time. Why do you suppose that is?

I literally had influenza during Covid. It was 10x worse than when I had Covid. Though, according to you, neither exists, so I wasn't actually sick.

 

[ZenMode]

Mike Stone wrote an article that deals specifically with measles. You may wish to take a look:

Measles Magic

Pulling back the curtain.

mikestone.substack.com

You realize that nothing in that article claims that measles doesn't exist, right?

 

[Scott]

Always with this "grand conspiracy". As I've said before, I see virology more like a religion. Just because people believe in a religion that has flaws in it (which, unless you believe in multiple realities is most if not all of them) doesn't mean that they are involved in a "grand conspiracy". They just believe some things that aren't true.

Yes, it has to be when you consider the number of people who would have to be involved to perpetuate the lie you are claiming, for decades upon decades, it has to be a conspiracy.

No, it doesn't have to be. As far as I know, no one claimed there was a "grand conspiracy" when they put Galileo under house arrest for telling people that the earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic Church was just wrong. That didn't stop them from claiming that science was on their side though.

 

[Scott]

No. All that's required is for people believe that the pseudoscientific foundations of virology are true.

Right, again, we're talking med/biology majors acrpss the globe, virologists across the globe, doctors across the globe, vaccine developers across the globe, government health departments across the globe..... ALL of them have to never question anything and/or ALL keep their mouths shut. All of them.

I've already told you multiple times, some -have- questioned things- the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement quoted and referenced in the opening post for a start. I believe those who have come to believe that these signatories is right has been growing as well.

 

[Scott]

I just said they weren't fake deaths.

Yes. Have you noticed that this was true before the alleged Cov 2 virus as well?

The flu is another excellent example, as it's also an alleged virus. Something I and friends noticed when Covid was in full swing was that the flu seemed to all but disappear during that time. Why do you suppose that is?

I literally had influenza during Covid. It was 10x worse than when I had Covid. Though, according to you, neither exists, so I wasn't actually sick.

Sigh -.- Just as I said that people allegedly dying of Covid didn't have fake deaths, people who get sick from the flu or covid aren't getting 'fake' sick. Everyone is getting sick from -something-, the issue is what that something is. If biological viruses aren't real, then clearly other things must be making people sick. I'm sure you agree that even for those who believe in biological viruses, viruses aren't the only cause of illness.

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone wrote an article that deals specifically with measles. You may wish to take a look:

Measles Magic

Pulling back the curtain.

mikestone.substack.com

You realize that nothing in that article claims that measles doesn't exist, right?

I think Mr. Stone was quite wise in avoiding that claim. The focus of Mike Stone and the other signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement is to point out the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist- as far as I know, none of them has said that there is -proof- that they don't exist. It's the difference between saying that there's proof that unicorns don't exist and simply saying that there is no solid evidence that they exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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



Nope.



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



Nope.



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.



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

OK. So now we have determined that your statement about viruses was false. One doesn't need to know a virus exists before looking for a it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Bullshit means it's flawed. You are simply deflecting from the fact that is it flawed and is bullshit. The fact that you don't want to have any discussion that points out that your sources are so flawed that bullshit is a proper term speaks volumes.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

ROFLMAO.
Quote him saying that he has discarded the possibility that the polio virus exists and you would have a case.

Citing the argument that your critics make doesn't mean you accept their criticism. If it did mean that then when you quote people here you would be saying you think viruses do exist.

Simple question - If you mention the arguments made by people that criticize your position, are you accepting their position as being correct?
In logic, you have to take one side or the other. You don't get to claim one person is doing that but you aren't doing it when you do the same thing.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.



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

You have never said it but your sources require viruses to act like bacteria for their arguments to have any merit and not be the bullshit it is.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

LOL. Once again, you use deflection rather than addressing an actual argument.

Mike Stone argues against 75 year old science that has been discarded or modified based on science actually using the scientific method. MIke Stone is ignoring how the scientific method works and is therefor using pseudoscience.

 

[Scott]

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

Nope.

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

Nope.

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.

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

OK. So now we have determined that your statement about viruses was false. One doesn't need to know a virus exists before looking for a it.

Your problem is that I never made such a statement.

 

[Scott]

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.

Bullshit means it's flawed.

Yes, it's a crass way of saying that something is flawed. If you want a productive conversation, you'd say it's flawed. If, on the other hand, you just want to argue with the other person for argument's sake, then you'll continue to use such crass terms.

 

[ZenMode]

I think Mr. Stone was quite wise in avoiding that claim.

Of course he is. Making such a claim, today, would make him sound like a raving lunatic.

The focus of Mike Stone and the other signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement is to point out the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist-

The evidence that biological viruses exist far....faaaaaar outweighs the evidence that they don't...whatever that means.

as far as I know, none of them has said that there is -proof- that they don't exist.

There's no proof that a pink unicorn, riding a chariot pulled by leprechauns, isn't the creater of the universe, is there?

It's the difference between saying that there's proof that unicorns don't exist and simply saying that there is no solid evidence that they exist.

I don't even know what you mean when you say "proof that unicorns don't exist". Reasonable people look at a claim - unicorns exist - and look for evidence to support that claim. We don't say "Prove to me that unicorns don't exist" because it can't be done. No matter what I would say, you can't prove that a unicorns doesn't exist.

It's Russell's Teapot:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

This is basically what you are doing.