APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What exactly do you think Dr. Mark Bailey was lying about?

There was no “detection of 2019-nCoV” as the paper claimed, all that was established was the analytical specificity of their assay to detect selected target sequences.
Lie #1 There was detection of the 2019-NCov virus as the paper claimed since the detected target sequence is part of the the virus.
It was an in vitro molecular reaction experiment with synthetic nucleic acid technology that does not require the existence of a virus.
Lie #2. It requires RNA in the sequence found in the virus. Without the virus, there is no detection which shows that the virus is required.
Further, there was no establishment of how the PCR result related to a clinical condition, i.e. the COVID-19 PCR kits were never shown to diagnose anything in a human subject.
Lie #3 The samples used were taken from humans. To claim they didn't come from human subjects is a pretty bold lie. I have already quoted the relevant part of the paper that shows that the samples came from human subjects.
An invented disease based on a fictional virus.
Lie #4- No evidence that the disease was invented. People clearly were getting sick. Lie#5 No evidence that the virus is fictional since it has been found de novo multiple times in samples taken from people that were sick.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If it were obvious, my simple search would have been enough. I'm sure you're capable of quoting what you're referring to. If you're not interested in doing that simple task, I think it's safe to say that you're not really that interested in debating the point.

It is obvious because it is one of Stone's main arguments in his claim that Pasteur was wrong about germ theory. Either you didn't read the article or you don't understand his arguments.

... nearly 100 years later in 1964, his grandson, Professor Louis Pasteur Vallery-Radot, donated all 152 notebooks to the French National Library. This allowed historians, such as Gerald Geison, to comb over Pasteur's work, and upon doing so, it was revealed that within his notebooks, there was no text between July 1879 and November 1879 mentioning this “fortunate” event that resulted in the attenuation of the culture. However, on January 14th, 1880, Pasteur wrote in his lab book: “Hen’s germs: when should we take the microbe, so it could vaccinate?” He would go on to announce the discovery of the vaccine in February of 1880. This was a clear admission that Pasteur had no understanding of the vaccine when he was said to have performed the experiments the year prior. Pasteur had lied about the events leading up to the creation of the vaccine.

There is no evidence that Pasteur lied. The fact that someone else didn't find something in the notebooks is not evidence. It is nothing but hearsay. Stone could have looked at the notebooks himself. He didn't and yet he felt he had enough evidence to say Pasteur lied. This is how sloppy Stone is in his arguments. This is how gullible you are in your trying to pass off his arguments as having merit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I will say that a shot you have to get each year is not a "vaccine" by any measure that I think of vaccines... I think actual vaccines give you immunity, a yearly shot gives you a hope to not get a disease as "severely" that is a treatment, not a vaccine.

The reason for the annual flu shot is that the flu virus is usually quite different from year to year. Yes, the flu vaccine loses its effectiveness over time but the vaccine for one flu virus is not nearly as effective against another different virus.

That is why it is very disconcerting that the Trump administration shut down the body that determines which flu viruses should go in next year's shot. Their job is to determine which viruses are currently circulating and which ones will likely still be active next fall. It's not a perfect science and sometimes they get it wrong but its better than ignoring the virus completely.

 

[Scott]

Wet typically need glasses for close up work and reading once we hit 50 or so. AMD cannot be corrected with glasses. It's caused by a deterioration of the macula, the central part of your retina. Drusen, bits of cellular debris, stack up in/around it causing fading loss of central vision. I can no longer see stars directly; only out of my peripheral vision. In fact, that's how I noticed it and mentioned it to my physician, who sent me to a specialist. I don't drive any more because my central vision is fuzzy. Facial expressions are difficult to read exc. outdoors in bright light.

If you are having vision issues please go see an optomitrist first, and if she/he recommends an ophthalmologist, do so. Your vision is too precious to take chances with. Odds are good that you just need a $5 pair of reading glasses. Good luck.

Oh, I've already gone to optometrists and yes, reading glasses allow me to see small writing. I've seen various ads that claim that I could get cured if I just paid for x or y product, but so far, I haven't found any of them persuasive enough to spend money on them. I still hope that -one- day I will no only find one persuasive and affordable enough, but it'd actually work, but I recognize that this may never happen (especially the actually work bit).

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone is pointing out all the evidence that proper science was never done when it came to verifying that biological viruses exist.

Denial of science isn't science.

Agreed. The problem in your argument is that you haven't shown any evidence that Mike Stone has denied science.

You haven't shown any evidence that he hasn't denied science. (See how that works. Making a statement and providing no actual support works just fine or it doesn't.)

I'm sure you've heard of the statement "innocent until proven guilty". You seem to want to do things the other way around. You claim that Mike Stone has denied science, it's up to you to prove that this is the case. Otherwise, it's just an unsubtantiated assertion.

 

[Scott]

You still haven't addressed where Stone is basing an argument solely on lack of evidence. That would be science denial on his part.

I went back to see what quote from Stone we were discussing- turns out, the quote was actually from Dr. Mark Bailey, not Mike Stone. I see that you get into what he said further on, so I'll get into this when I get there.

 

[Scott]

I'm not sure how you're defining science, but I will say that he's contributed greatly to the knowledge that virology is pseudoscientific.

Still waiting for you to defend his lack of evidence as being science.

For simple argument's sake let's define science the same way Albert Einstein is quoted by Mike Stone.
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Where is the experiment conducted by Mike Stone to prove Pasteur wrong?

I'm sure you've heard of the scientific method. Mike Stone simply pointed out the many instances where Louis Pasteur didn't follow it. I'll quote from the conclusion of Mr. Stone's article The Germ Hypothesis, Part 1, which talks about Mr. Pasteur's alleged vaccine for rabies:
**
Pasteur also recounted the case of an alcoholic who, after having seen some sort of deposit m his glass during lunch, “was seized by a feeling of horror toward the liquid and by a constriction of the throat, followed by headache and by lameness and fatigue in all his limbs.” Pasteur stated that this man, who succumbed a few days after developing symptoms, “displayed all the features of furious rabies,” but that the man did not die of rabies as he had never been bitten. Thus, as Pasteur ironically showed, no microbe is necessary to explain the symptoms associated with rabies.

Regardless, Geison stated that, due to his vaccine, Pasteur and his laboratory received a copious amount of donations from private individuals and organizations throughout the world. This led to the organization of a formal subscription where contributions easily surpassed two million francs by November 1888, the same time that his new Institut Pasteur was officially inaugurated. To say that the creation of a rabies vaccine was lucrative for Pasteur is an understatement. To say that he proved his hypothesis that a specific microbe could cause the rabies disease and that his vaccine prevented the disease from occurring is nothing but pseudoscientific fiction. Pasteur was unsuccessful in culturing and identifying any microbe responsible for rabies from the saliva, blood, and neverous system tissues from diseased animals. However, he still believed that, despite the absence of having an isolated pathogen, creating a successful vaccine would prove that his germ “theory” was true. Due to his secrecy surrounding his work, Geison noted that debate raged over “whether or not his work on rabies met the standards of truly scientific research.”

Thus, from his forray into rabies, we find that Pasteur clearly failed at proving his hypothesis of a specific microbe as the causative agent as he:

• Was unable to isolate any microbe responsible for the experimental disease that he produced.
• Showed that his methods brought about unrelated artificial disease not seen in nature with injections of cultures of microbes, which could then be used to make vaccines for his newly created artificial disease.
• Performed grotesque unnatural injections of nervous tissues into the brains of animals to recreate nervous system disease which did not reflect his hypothesized route of exposure.
• Concocted a rabies vaccine that produced the same signs and symptoms of disease it was supposed to protect against, and even those not seen in nature, which could lead to death.
• Admitted that the rabies disease could occur without animal bites or any “pathogenic microbe” due to fear and drug abuse.

**

Full article:

The Germ Hypothesis Part 1

Pasteur's Problems

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Damocles]

The reality is we've catalogued the DNA and RNA of viruses, know how they act (invading cells, hijacking the mitosis process and using the cells themselves to create copies of themselves to spread to other cells, so forth, it is a specific MO and very unlike how bacteria react), have images of them, the bullet shape of rabies, the spikey ball we all know now as SARS-Cov-2... This is like looking at the "blue marble" image and still insisting that it is CGI fakery. You'll have to believe that every person working in modern medicine today lie to us all and create imaginary CGI images of the virus infecting cells in actual biological lifeforms (not all are even viruses that infect humans).

You'd have to ignore the virus we isolated, created a vaccine for, then literally eradicated from the Earth (Small Pox). the pictures below are not "artist sketches" they are real actual viruses we have images of from electron microscopes.

Then there’s the molecular angle. We’ve sequenced viral genomes... RNA or DNA that codes for proteins unique to each virus. Flu, HIV, Ebola... they’ve all got distinct genetic fingerprints we can track, test, and actually match to symptoms. Denying that means tossing out genetics entirely, which is a tough sell when we use the same tech to catch criminals.

If these viruses don't exist, why do we find these actual viruses and their DNA in infected biological entities (as I said, not all of them infect humans) that act in predictable ways, and with mappable DNA which we can actually catalogue, predict how they will act, what symptoms they are likely to produce, and ultimately actually find which version of the virus started an outbreak?

Rabies Virus:

SARS-Cov-2 Virus:

 

[Scott]

The reality is we've catalogued the DNA and RNA of viruses

That's certainly what the mainstream media would have you believe. A group of medical doctors and other researchers came to see that this simply isn't the case and wrote a 2 page article as to why they came to that conclusion. I referenced this article in the opening post- it can be seen here:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

As I quoted in the opening post of this thread:
**
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**

I stopped quoting the article at that point in the opening post, but I think that perhaps a bit more in response to your post might be in order. So continuing:
**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemedfactual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick livingbeing. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs mustbe provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;

2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sicknessin test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, anddemonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.


However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot befound in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore,we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods incurrent use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cellsand bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cellcultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim thateach “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from thebodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology communityprove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbalsparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without anydoubt, show whether these claims are valid.

**

The 2 page article concludes by outlining 2 steps that would be a first step in validating, or invalidating, that biological viruses exist. You can read about these steps here in the article linked to above.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The reality is we've catalogued the DNA and RNA of viruses, know how they act (invading cells, hijacking the mitosis process and using the cells themselves to create copies of themselves to spread to other cells, so forth, it is a specific MO and very unlike how bacteria react), have images of them, the bullet shape of rabies, the spikey ball we all know now as SARS-Cov-2... This is like looking at the "blue marble" image and still insisting that it is CGI fakery. You'll have to believe that every person working in modern medicine today lie to us all and create imaginary CGI images of the virus infecting cells in actual biological lifeforms (not all are even viruses that infect humans).

You'd have to ignore the virus we isolated, created a vaccine for, then literally eradicated from the Earth (Small Pox). the pictures below are not "artist sketches" they are real actual viruses we have images of from electron microscopes.

Then there’s the molecular angle. We’ve sequenced viral genomes... RNA or DNA that codes for proteins unique to each virus. Flu, HIV, Ebola... they’ve all got distinct genetic fingerprints we can track, test, and actually match to symptoms. Denying that means tossing out genetics entirely, which is a tough sell when we use the same tech to catch criminals.

If these viruses don't exist, why do we find these actual viruses and their DNA in infected biological entities (as I said, not all of them infect humans) that act in predictable ways, and with mappable DNA which we can actually catalogue, predict how they will act, what symptoms they are likely to produce, and ultimately actually find which version of the virus started an outbreak?

Rabies Virus:

SARS-Cov-2 Virus:

Well said.

Good point about mapping, too.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm sure you've heard of the statement "innocent until proven guilty". You seem to want to do things the other way around. You claim that Mike Stone has denied science, it's up to you to prove that this is the case. Otherwise, it's just an unsubtantiated assertion.

I guess you don't really believe "innocent until proven guilty" because you accept Mike Stone's claim that Pasteur is guilty of lying about his research when there is only lack of evidence. It seems all Mike Stone has is unsubstantiated assertions and yet you are acting as if his unsubstantiated assertions are fact.

Then you believe the "Dr" Bailey when all he has is unsubstantiated assertions as well as outright lies.

Let's make this a conversation about unsubstantiated assertions because it will only highlight the fact that your entire argument is based on unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm sure you've heard of the scientific method. Mike Stone simply pointed out the many instances where Louis Pasteur didn't follow it. I'll quote from the conclusion of Mr. Stone's article The Germ Hypothesis, Part 1, which talks about Mr. Pasteur's alleged vaccine for rabies:
**
Pasteur also recounted the case of an alcoholic who, after having seen some sort of deposit m his glass during lunch, “was seized by a feeling of horror toward the liquid and by a constriction of the throat, followed by headache and by lameness and fatigue in all his limbs.” Pasteur stated that this man, who succumbed a few days after developing symptoms, “displayed all the features of furious rabies,” but that the man did not die of rabies as he had never been bitten. Thus, as Pasteur ironically showed, no microbe is necessary to explain the symptoms associated with rabies.

Regardless, Geison stated that, due to his vaccine, Pasteur and his laboratory received a copious amount of donations from private individuals and organizations throughout the world. This led to the organization of a formal subscription where contributions easily surpassed two million francs by November 1888, the same time that his new Institut Pasteur was officially inaugurated. To say that the creation of a rabies vaccine was lucrative for Pasteur is an understatement. To say that he proved his hypothesis that a specific microbe could cause the rabies disease and that his vaccine prevented the disease from occurring is nothing but pseudoscientific fiction. Pasteur was unsuccessful in culturing and identifying any microbe responsible for rabies from the saliva, blood, and neverous system tissues from diseased animals. However, he still believed that, despite the absence of having an isolated pathogen, creating a successful vaccine would prove that his germ “theory” was true. Due to his secrecy surrounding his work, Geison noted that debate raged over “whether or not his work on rabies met the standards of truly scientific research.”

Thus, from his forray into rabies, we find that Pasteur clearly failed at proving his hypothesis of a specific microbe as the causative agent as he:

• Was unable to isolate any microbe responsible for the experimental disease that he produced.
• Showed that his methods brought about unrelated artificial disease not seen in nature with injections of cultures of microbes, which could then be used to make vaccines for his newly created artificial disease.
• Performed grotesque unnatural injections of nervous tissues into the brains of animals to recreate nervous system disease which did not reflect his hypothesized route of exposure.
• Concocted a rabies vaccine that produced the same signs and symptoms of disease it was supposed to protect against, and even those not seen in nature, which could lead to death.
• Admitted that the rabies disease could occur without animal bites or any “pathogenic microbe” due to fear and drug abuse.

**

Full article:

The Germ Hypothesis Part 1

Pasteur's Problems

mikestone.substack.com

Oh look. You are relying on unsubstantiated allegations.

Whether someone followed the scientific method or not doesn't prove their conclusions are wrong. The only way to test if the conclusions are correct is to conduct experiments to try to falsify the conclusions. Mike Stone conducts zero experiments. The failure to conduct experiments to falsify something would be denial of the scientific method. Then Stone (And you) commits his biggest error when he completely ignores the over 100 years of science using the scientific method that has confirmed that viruses exist.

Whether the unsubstantiated allegation that Pasteur didn't follow the scientific method is true or not has absolutely no bearing on whether viruses exist or not. It is nothing but denial by attempting to cherry pick one unsubstantiated allegation of an error and blow that error up to deny all other science. It's like saying because one person when counting to 1,000 made an error and transposed a number (1, 2, 4, 3, 5...) it proves that the number 1,000 doesn't exist. It is complete nonsense to make such an argument and it is complete nonsense to say viruses don't exist because of an unsubstantiated allegation that Pasteur didn't follow the scientific method.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemedfactual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick livingbeing. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs mustbe provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;

This is the perfect example of your circular reasoning. You demand that there be electron micrographs to prove to you something exists while at the same time you claim that all electron micrographs are not real but are all faked.

For you to demand evidence that you claim is not real shows how ridiculous your position is.