APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

Show me solid evidence that any of the microbes recorded in any electron micrograph is actually a biological virus and then we can talk about your "proofs".

You will simply post the same garbage over and over and over as you have done for over the last year.

Insulting the quality of your opponent's arguments is not quite as bad as directly insulting your opponent, but it's still pretty bad. If you don't find an argument to be persuasive, you should simply point out why and leave it at that.

Proof it is a virus -

It came from a creature or plant showing signs of a disease.

Your argument seems to be that if a creature or plant shows signs of disease, then anything that "came" from it must be a virus. This is nonsense.

It was grown in a cell culture.

If you can show me any solid evidence that a biological virus was "grown" anywhere, by all means, present it.

It was isolated using one of several different methods

I've seen absolutely no evidence that any biological virus has ever been isolated using the conventional definition of the term. This is something that the signers of the statement referenced in the opening post talk about extensively. Quoting from the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement:
**
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.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

On the contrary, I'd say that ignoring the lack of evidence that anything observed in electron microscopes fits the definition of a biological virus is the true red herring.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.
Define virus.
Then tell us how a picture is supposed to fit that definition.

Pictures of something don't fit a definition of actions or DNA/RNA. It is another red herring on your part to claim that something observed in an electron microscope doesn't fit the definition of a virus. The pictures show that viruses exist because they exist physically and can be photographed. The pictures also show that specific viruses have unique shapes. The pictures also prove that viruses can be isolated in order to have the pictures taken.

You are simply running from one isolated denial to another isolated denial trying to avoid the fact that your denials don't make sense when we put them all together. Science requires you look at ALL THE EVIDENCE at the same time. You don't get to ignore 95% of the evidence to try to deny 5%.

 

[Scott]

Hold on there. Before you go on about what you think biological viruses are -doing-, you first need to establish solid evidence that they exist.

We already have that. The DNA is irrefutable.

"The" DNA? What DNA are you referring to?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Insulting the quality of your opponent's arguments is not quite as bad as directly insulting your opponent, but it's still pretty bad. If you don't find an argument to be persuasive, you should simply point out why and leave it at that.

Advice you should learn to live by. You have never pointed out why the argument for viruses is not persuasive. You have only relied on denial and running away from the majority of the evidence.

Your argument seems to be that if a creature or plant shows signs of disease, then anything that "came" from it must be a virus. This is nonsense.

Lovely straw man fallacy. It appears you can't make a persuasive argument so have to resort to lies and obfuscation.

If you can show me any solid evidence that a biological virus was "grown" anywhere, by all means, present it.

Did you look at any of the 20 papers I presented? It would appear not since you have not addressed one of them.
Asking me for evidence and then not looking at the evidence is not a valid argument on your part. It shows there is no quality at all to your argument. You simply repeat the same dictas over and over, demand evidence and then ignore the evidence.

I've seen absolutely no evidence that any biological virus has ever been isolated using the conventional definition of the term. This is something that the signers of the statement referenced in the opening post talk about extensively. Quoting from the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement:

You have refused to even look at any evidence. Your blindness is not based on lack of evidence from me but is based on your continued refusals to even look at any evidence.

**
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.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

And there you go again. Reposting the same crap from Dr Bailey instead of addressing any of the evidence you have been presented.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"The" DNA? What DNA are you referring to?

Denial again on your part. How can you argue that viruses don't exist when you don't even understand the arguments for why they exist?

 

[Scott]

Unsubstantiated assertion on your part. There is a lot of solid evidence that a lot of microbes fit the definition of biological viruses. There is a lot of evidence including aver a thousand years of circumstantial evidence that viruses exist.

Alright, show me this evidence then.

Let me know when Mike Stone, Dr Bailey or you have refuted any of the following -
Then I can get to the next 20 -

Structure and Organization of Virus Genomes - PMC

This chapter provides an in depth study on the structure, composition, and organization of viral genomes, their classification into double stranded and single stranded DNA viruses, positive and negative stranded RNA viruses with and their genome ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Once again, I'd like to point out that no one has said that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. What the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement posits is that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time, because to date, I've seen no paper that questions the underlying assumptions inherent in such papers, which is that biological viruses exist. What I and the signatories in the "Settling" statement are asking for is solid evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

 

[Damocles]

"The" DNA? What DNA are you referring to?

This has to be the thirtieth time that you have asked that and I answered every single time.

Genetic sequencing of viruses exist. They can use it to map patient zero, and using a DNA map of a novel virus they can predict what symptoms may arise, or how virulent that particular variant might be.

What Is Virus Genome Sequencing?

What Is Virus Genome Sequencing?

www.webmd.com

Viruses have genomes, too. A virus genome can be made of DNA or a similar molecule called RNA. Compared to your genome, a virus genome is tiny. For example, coronaviruses such as the one that causes COVID-19 have an RNA genome that’s about 30,000 letters long (that’s 100,000 times smaller than the human genome). The genome of influenza or flu virus is even shorter at about 13,500 RNA letters.

Using genomic sequencing they were able to tell, for instance, that Omicron variant would spread easier than earlier variants.

Not only were they able to isolate the virus they were also able to sequence the genome, and with it predict how the variant might react.

 

[Scott]

Hold on there. Before you go on about what you think biological viruses are -doing-, you first need to establish solid evidence that they exist.

Complete nonsense on your part. You are doing nothing but using logical fallacies. In science you don't establish that something exists before determining what it is doing.

Ah, ofcourse, we need to first establish what unicorns are doing and -then- determine if they exist -.-.

The normal science would be to observe something happening and then try to figure out what caused it.

On -that- we can agree. So, what we have are diseases and people came up with theories as to what causes these diseases. Some people came up with the theory that various diseases are caused by things they decided to call "viruses". The problem is that to date, there's been no solid evidence that such things exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Once again, I'd like to point out that no one has said that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist. What the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement posits is that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time, because to date, I've seen no paper that questions the underlying assumptions inherent in such papers, which is that biological viruses exist. What I and the signatories in the "Settling" statement are asking for is solid evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

So in other words, you will simply not look at any evidence while demanding that you be shown evidence.

I guess that settles the debate.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Ah, ofcourse, we need to first establish what unicorns are doing and -then- determine if they exist -.-.

Once again. You simply resort to logical fallacies because you have no other arguments.

We saw the actions of viruses before we knew viruses existed.
Since you brought up unicorns. Tell us what action you have observed that might be the result of unicorns then we can determine if those actions were actually caused by unicorns or something else.

On -that- we can agree. So, what we have are diseases and people came up with theories as to what causes these diseases. Some people came up with the theory that various diseases are caused by things they decided to call "viruses". The problem is that to date, there's been no solid evidence that such things exist.

The problem is that you refuse to look at any evidence when shown it.
This is your entire argument in one sentence -

As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

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.

Well, presumption aside, that is partially the definition of a virus.

They can't reproduce on their own, they use living cells to do it; so you would never find them unless you find them as a 'residue' of a living cell.

The other critical behavior of these 'particles that come from living cells but are much smaller' is that when you introduce a small amount of them into a large population of living cells they take over, often killing, and make a whole lot more.

If we were to take for example dead skin cells falling off a human as an analogy. If they just sat there as dust you could can see how they would be most likely a dead residue.

If however they caused severe eczema whenever a new human touched them, then you have a contagion and it is more complicated than dead tissue.


So the only real question here is, can you reproduce the contagion phenomenon? The answer is: yes, it's not even that expensive anymore. I've toured businesses that do it every week.

These "doctors" need to get out of their basement and go to a lab.

 

[Scott]

It doesn't demand anything. It -does- outline a series of steps that researchers can take in order to find evidence (or lack thereof) that biological viruses exist. This is just basic science, specifically, the aspect of fasifiability:
**Falsifiability (or refutability) is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
**
Source:

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What you should be asking is, what evidence have virologists provided that any microbes that they've recorded with electron migrographs are actually biological viruses?

Wow. You give us the meaning of falsification and then completely ignore what falsification is.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that can figure out your statement makes no sense. If I'm literally providing the definition of what falsification is, it should be patently obvious that I'm not ignoring what falsification is.

Falsification requires you to provide an answer as to what the micrographs are if they aren't viruses.

No, it does not. You seem to not understand the meaning of falsification. Fortunately, Wikipedia's article on the subject elaborates beyond what I quoted. Here's the passage that follows the introductory one I already quoted:
**
[Falsifiability] was introduced by philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). Popper emphasized the asymmetry created by the relation of a universal law with basic observation statements and contrasted falsifiability with the intuitively similar concept of verifiability that was then current in the philosophical discipline of logical positivism. He argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans, which is not possible. On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is sufficient to falsify the claim.

Popper proposed falsifiability as the cornerstone solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. He insisted that, as a logical criterion, falsifiability was distinct from the related concept "capacity to be proven wrong" discussed in Lakatos's falsificationism. Its purpose was to make theory predictive and testable, and thus useful in practice.

By contrast, the Duhem–Quine thesis says that definitive experimental falsifications are impossible and that no scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires background assumptions.

Popper's response was that falsifiability does not have the Duhem problem, because it is a logical criterion. Experimental research has the Duhem problem and other problems, such as the problem of induction, but, according to Popper, statistical tests, which are possible only when a theory is falsifiable, can still be useful within a critical discussion.

As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudoscience, falsifiability has featured prominently in many controversies and applications, used as legal precedent. However, falsifiability is not a sufficient condition for demarcating science as theories have to be tested in order to eliminate false theories. In scientific practice, this can cause theories to change from falsified to unfalsified, such as when the once-falsified geocentric world view was restored as a viable reference frame within special relativity. Ambiguity surrounds the status of theories that cannot be tested.
**

Source:

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's the last line in that rather long passage that concerns us. This is why those who have stopped believing biological viruses insist that the only way to restore faith in them is to have a way to falsify their existence. Failing this, virology is an ambiguous theory at best. Worse, because there are certainly other possible explanations as to what causes diseases attributed to biological viruses.

 

[Scott]

As is clear from my lack of responding here for a bit, taking a break from debating this. One of the reasons is that I'm the only one here who no longer believes in biological viruses, so it's certainly not as fun as debating issues where there -are- people who are on my side and perhaps for the same reason, the 'no evidence for biological virus' side just isn't taken very seriously here. However, Kim Iverson, who used to work for the Hill and now has her own show, did another interview with one of the doctors from the 'no evidence for biological viruses' camp, and I thought that some here might find it interesting, so here it is:

There Was No COVID Virus! How We've All Been Duped By The Medical Establishment

The Kim Iversen Show LIVE | March 31, 2025 What if viruses don’t exist at all? In this explosive interview, Dr. Tom Cowan — longtime physician and author of The Contagion Myth — makes the shocking cas

rumble.com

It isn't taken very seriously anywhere that respects the Scientific Method and knowledge.

No, it's not taken seriously because most people don't fully understand the scientific method. I think one aspect of this is that people don't understand the importance of falsifiability when it comes to science. I get into this in my previous post in response to a post from Saunders.

 

[Scott]

As is clear from my lack of responding here for a bit, taking a break from debating this. One of the reasons is that I'm the only one here who no longer believes in biological viruses, so it's certainly not as fun as debating issues where there -are- people who are on my side and perhaps for the same reason, the 'no evidence for biological virus' side just isn't taken very seriously here. However, Kim Iverson, who used to work for the Hill and now has her own show, did another interview with one of the doctors from the 'no evidence for biological viruses' camp, and I thought that some here might find it interesting, so here it is:

There Was No COVID Virus! How We've All Been Duped By The Medical Establishment

The Kim Iversen Show LIVE | March 31, 2025 What if viruses don’t exist at all? In this explosive interview, Dr. Tom Cowan — longtime physician and author of The Contagion Myth — makes the shocking cas

rumble.com

"One of the reasons is that I'm the only one here who no longer believes in biological viruses"

That is a good thing, BTW.

It really isn't, but I can understand why you believe the opposite.

 

[Scott]

We disagree on whether or not biological viruses exist. We shouldn't disagree that we don't want to live in a world where the majority of people seek out and believe claims solely because they are minority claims and/or come from fringe sources.

We indeed agree on that point, but the details are important. I certainly don't want anyone to believe something "solely because they are the minority claims". We should believe what is most logical based on the evidence humanity has amassed. I'd say that the evidence strongly suggests that biological viruses don't exist and the no vaccine has ever helped anyone, while many have harmed.

The details are important but when presented with the evidence you ask for you simply run away and ignore that evidence.

No, though I frequently take breaks from this thread entirely. I generally find it positively demoralizing to be the sole person in a forum arguing one side of a debate. If it weren't so important, I would have stopped long ago.

You asked for evidence of viruses. I presented you with 20 science papers.

A paper can claim to be based on the scientific method without actually being based on the scientific method. I just found a paper on this that I find interesting, because it introduces a fictional virus, that is, one that -definitely- doesn't exist, but when "scientific references" are used, it is believed by many anyway. I've only read the abstract, but I think that's enough for my argument here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000871

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that can figure out your statement makes no sense. If I'm literally providing the definition of what falsification is, it should be patently obvious that I'm not ignoring what falsification is.



No, it does not. You seem to not understand the meaning of falsification. Fortunately, Wikipedia's article on the subject elaborates beyond what I quoted. Here's the passage that follows the introductory one I already quoted:
**
[Falsifiability] was introduced by philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). Popper emphasized the asymmetry created by the relation of a universal law with basic observation statements and contrasted falsifiability with the intuitively similar concept of verifiability that was then current in the philosophical discipline of logical positivism. He argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans, which is not possible. On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is sufficient to falsify the claim.

Popper proposed falsifiability as the cornerstone solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. He insisted that, as a logical criterion, falsifiability was distinct from the related concept "capacity to be proven wrong" discussed in Lakatos's falsificationism. Its purpose was to make theory predictive and testable, and thus useful in practice.

By contrast, the Duhem–Quine thesis says that definitive experimental falsifications are impossible and that no scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires background assumptions.

Popper's response was that falsifiability does not have the Duhem problem, because it is a logical criterion. Experimental research has the Duhem problem and other problems, such as the problem of induction, but, according to Popper, statistical tests, which are possible only when a theory is falsifiable, can still be useful within a critical discussion.

As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudoscience, falsifiability has featured prominently in many controversies and applications, used as legal precedent. However, falsifiability is not a sufficient condition for demarcating science as theories have to be tested in order to eliminate false theories. In scientific practice, this can cause theories to change from falsified to unfalsified, such as when the once-falsified geocentric world view was restored as a viable reference frame within special relativity. Ambiguity surrounds the status of theories that cannot be tested.
**

Source:

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's the last line in that rather long passage that concerns us. This is why those who have stopped believing biological viruses insist that the only way to restore faith in them is to have a way to falsify their existence. Failing this, virology is an ambiguous theory at best. Worse, because there are certainly other possible explanations as to what causes diseases attributed to biological viruses.

On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is sufficient to falsify the claim.

The way to falsify the micrographs being something other then viruses is to show us what they are that is not a virus. It seems you don't understand the basics of falsifying even when you post it here. You can easily falsify the theory that the micrographs show viruses by providing a falsifiable explanation of what they are.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, though I frequently take breaks from this thread entirely. I generally find it positively demoralizing to be the sole person in a forum arguing one side of a debate. If it weren't so important, I would have stopped long ago.



A paper can claim to be based on the scientific method without actually being based on the scientific method. I just found a paper on this that I find interesting, because it introduces a fictional virus, that is, one that -definitely- doesn't exist, but when "scientific references" are used, it is believed by many anyway. I've only read the abstract, but I think that's enough for my argument here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000871

LOL. Once again, you fail to understand the meaning of falsification. Then you also fail to understand even basic logic.

The logic you are attempting to use -
A is a swan
B is a swan
C is a swan ... Y is a swan
X is claimed to be a swan and is believed by some people but it is actually a duck.
It is a false conclusion to claim that because some people believe X to be a swan doesn't prove that A -Y are not swans.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, it's not taken seriously because most people don't fully understand the scientific method. I think one aspect of this is that people don't understand the importance of falsifiability when it comes to science. I get into this in my previous post in response to a post from Saunders.

It is you that fails to understand what falsifiability even is.

You can easily falsify the micrographs by showing us what they are and providing more evidence of that than there is for them being viruses. Instead of doing that you completely ignore the scientific method which uses falsification and rely on the unscientific bullshit of denial.

 

[ZenMode]

It really isn't, but I can understand why you believe the opposite.

Do you?

 

[ZenMode]

No, though I frequently take breaks from this thread entirely. I generally find it positively demoralizing to be the sole person in a forum arguing one side of a debate. If it weren't so important, I would have stopped long ago.

Being the only person arguing one side isn't always bad, except when the side your arguing is irrational.

A paper can claim to be based on the scientific method without actually being based on the scientific method. I just found a paper on this that I find interesting, because it introduces a fictional virus, that is, one that -definitely- doesn't exist, but when "scientific references" are used, it is believed by many anyway. I've only read the abstract, but I think that's enough for my argument here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103121000871

What do you think had to happen for the entirety of the scientific/medical world (public and private, on every continent) to get together and manufacture the lie of biological viruses?