APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

I think it's safe to say that the doctors and other researchers who no longer believe in virology would argue that viroligy is as scientific as scientology. Quoting from the statement that I quoted and linked to in the opening post of this thread:
**
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 rational 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.
**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

That is not a scientific argument.

I disagree.

Science would require that they falsify the virology theory.

I believe the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement makes it clear that virology has set itself up to be unfalsifiable. As such, it isn't science, but pseudoscience. It's understandable that most people can't see this though. How many people know the methodologies virologists employ, let alone the fact that they have insufficient controls?

 

[Scott]

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.

Perhaps it'd be best to agree to disagree on that one.

Define virus.

Sure. The 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement does it at the very top of the first page:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that canreplicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

**

They get this definition from a mainstream source:
1 Definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6

Then tell us how a picture is supposed to fit that definition.

Where did you get the notion that I thought a picture was supposed to fit that definition? The correct way to see what something does is to -truly- isolate it from other things and only -then- introduce it back to things to ensure that any effects (such as the cytopathic effect) is actually caused by the thing you have isolated. The problem in the case of alleged biological viruses is that this has never been done. It has actually been alleged that it -can't- be done. Instead, various substances have been introduced to cells and one or more of the introduced substances have caused the cytopathic effect. There has never been any solid evidence that the microbes seen under electron microscopes were required to produce said cytopathic effects.

The "Settling the virus debate" statement makes it clear that providing evidence that a biological virus is actually required for observed cytopathic effects is quite important. It's literally in their first step for determining whether biological viruses exist. I've colored CPE, aka cytopathic effect in orange so you can skip to the word and backtrack from there if you like:
**
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity asa pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of theother participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive fivenasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;

2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will bemade available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

A good rule of thumb- don't start with your conclusions, but your arguments. That's especially true if your conclusions are incredibly insulting to the person you're responding to. What tends to happen is people subjected to such treatment tend to shut out any actual arguments you make after your insults. Some people do this by insulting the person who just insulted them, I prefer to simply point out why I tuned out.

It's insulting to tell someone the theory they support is garbage?

Hmmm...

Perhaps you could stop insulting us here by citing the Baileys and Mike Stone.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I disagree.



I believe the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement makes it clear that virology has set itself up to be unfalsifiable. As such, it isn't science, but pseudoscience. It's understandable that most people can't see this though.

What you believe is unbelievable.
Since you claim that the theory of viruses is unfalsifiable tell us why that is the case that it can never be falsified.


It is easy to falsify the theory of viruses. You can do it in several ways. You can show that diseases are caused by another cause that is more likely. You can show where the DNA and RNA sequences come from if they don't come from a virus. You can show us what is actually in the pictures that claim to be viruses. Rather than do anything to falsify the virus theory, you make the wild claim that it can't be falsified. You are providing us nothing but excuses and unsupported claims.

How many people know the methodologies virologists employ, let alone the fact that they have insufficient controls?

Claiming that because people don't know the methodology it is wrong and therefor viruses don't exist is a logical fallacy. It is not based on science. It is simply furtherance of your Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
Since virologists employ an actual methodology that methodology could be falsified which shows your claim that it can't be falsified to be false.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Perhaps it'd be best to agree to disagree on that one.



Sure. The 2 page "Settling the Virus Debate" statement does it at the very top of the first page:
**
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that canreplicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

**

They get this definition from a mainstream source:
1 Definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6



Where did you get the notion that I thought a picture was supposed to fit that definition? The correct way to see what something does is to -truly- isolate it from other things and only -then- introduce it back to things to ensure that any effects (such as the cytopathic effect) is actually caused by the thing you have isolated. The problem in the case of alleged biological viruses is that this has never been done. It has actually been alleged that it -can't- be done. Instead, various substances have been introduced to cells and one or more of the introduced substances have caused the cytopathic effect. There has never been any solid evidence that the microbes seen under electron microscopes were required to produce said cytopathic effects.

The "Settling the virus debate" statement makes it clear that providing evidence that a biological virus is actually required for observed cytopathic effects is quite important. It's literally in their first step for determining whether biological viruses exist. I've colored CPE, aka cytopathic effect in orange so you can skip to the word and backtrack from there if you like:
**
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity asa pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE

5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of theother participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive fivenasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;

2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will bemade available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

**

Full statement:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

drsambailey.com

Interesting. You claim the theory can't be falsified and then you propose a method to falsify it. It seems you can't even keep your arguments straight.

What we are seeing from you is nothing but classic conspiracy nonsense.
1. Take a couple of truths or obvious errors and build your entire case on those isolated instances while ignoring all the other evidence.
2. Claim only you know the truth and everyone else is hiding things.
3. Make contradictory claims while pretending those claims are not contradictory. (Can't falsify while proposing a method to do so.)
4. Refuse to look at any other evidence that disputes the conspiracy theory or claim all the other evidence is fake.



We are back to this -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.

You will never find a study if you never bother to look at anything. The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem as you yourself admit is that you simply refuse to look at any evidence.

How do you know that your sources are correct if you refuse to read any of the 30 science papers I have linked to?

 

[Scott]

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.

Are you suggesting that I have insulted your arguments by calling them things like garbage?

 

[Scott]

You have never pointed out why the argument for viruses is not persuasive.

I think the issue here is that my arguments for why I no longer believe in biological viruses is not persuasive to -you-. From my point of view, the very first post in this thread provides a very persuasive argument that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.

 

[Scott]

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?

I've already explained why I haven't- they are all based on certain assumptions, such as Enders' pseudoscientific way of "discovering" biological viruses. You first need to persuade me that Enders' method is actually scientific for me to pay attention to anyone who assumes that it is.

 

[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?

Denial again on your part.

I actually wasn't denying anything. I was asking Damocles a question.

 

[Scott]

"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.

I sincerely doubt I've asked you this anywhere close to that amount of times, but thank you for answering my question below. I will say I -suspected- you might be referring to DNA that's alleged to be from biological viruses, I just don't like making assumptions. After all, all living things have DNA.

Genetic sequencing of viruses exist.

That's certainly what virologists would have you believe. I don't believe it's the truth though. The 2 page statement referenced in the opening post of this thread does get into the subject of this alleged genetic sequencing of biological viruses. Quoting from it and colouring any word that starts with "sequenc" to make it easer to find:
**
Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

**

It then continues with how one might go about providing solid evidence that biological viruses actually exist:
**
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity asa pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of theother participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will bemade available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samplesor conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used,including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of thevirus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also beblinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.


STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remainblinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the samesample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the allegedSARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.

(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)

If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims shouldbe brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.

It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-likeparticles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles,which are contagious and disease causing.

We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.
**

 

[Scott]

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 -.-.

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

As far as I can tell, it was you who seemed to think we should first figure out what alleged biological viruses are doing before establishing if they even exist. If you'd like to try to explain why you think that -isn't- a logical fallacy, by all means do so.

We saw the actions of viruses before we knew viruses existed.

Interestingly, the definition of biological viruses themselves has changed over time. At first, it apparently meant some form of chemical poison, according to Mike Stone:
**
While Pasteur had this idea of how diseases were caused by microorganisms as early as the 1860s, he didn't put his hypothesis to the test until the late 1870s. In an 1878 lecture The Germ Theory And Its Applications To Medicine And Surgery read before the French Academy of Sciences on April 29th, 1878, Pasteur had already hypothesized that there was a “virus” (i.e. some form of chemical poison as the word didn't mean an obligate intracellular parasite at that time) in the solutions of the bacterial cultures that he was working with. He then went on to claim that this poison would accumulate within the body of the animal as the bacteria grew. Interestingly, he then noted that his hypothesis presupposes the forming and necessary existence of the bacteria, thus admitting that his hypothesis was not based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
**

Source:

The Germ Hypothesis Part 1

Pasteur's Problems

mikestone.substack.com

The irony is that I strongly believe that the idea that poison is the true cause of a lot of CPE (cytopathic effect) is the truth. Louis Pasteur couldn't find existence for bacteria causing the problem because there was none. Those who no longer believe in biological viruses say that there is in fact no viruses either, just microbes, such as exosomes, that are labelled as such.

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.

I don't believe in unicorns, though I have heard that the idea of them may have come from rhinoceroses, which do have a big horn (as well as a smaller one, but the big one tends to stick out more). There are also narwhals, that were apparently killed and their horns then sold off as unicorn horns. My point is that electron microscopy has clearly seen various microbes and passed some of them off as biological viruses, but that doesn't mean that they actually have the parasitical characteristics that biological viruses are said to have.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I think the issue here is that my arguments for why I no longer believe in biological viruses is not persuasive to -you-. From my point of view, the very first post in this thread provides a very persuasive argument that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist.

We are back to this - You have decided you won't look at any evidence but are completely convinced without looking at evidence.

Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.

You will never find a study if you never bother to look at anything. The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem as you yourself admit is that you simply refuse to look at any evidence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've already explained why I haven't- they are all based on certain assumptions, such as Enders' pseudoscientific way of "discovering" biological viruses. You first need to persuade me that Enders' method is actually scientific for me to pay attention to anyone who assumes that it is.

Yes. We know. You have decided your argument is best supported by you not looking at any evidence that disputes it.

We are back to this -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.

You will never find a study if you never bother to look at anything. The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem as you yourself admit is that you simply refuse to look at any evidence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As far as I can tell, it was you who seemed to think we should first figure out what alleged biological viruses are doing before establishing if they even exist. If you'd like to try to explain why you think that -isn't- a logical fallacy, by all means do so.



Interestingly, the definition of biological viruses themselves has changed over time. At first, it apparently meant some form of chemical poison, according to Mike Stone:
**
While Pasteur had this idea of how diseases were caused by microorganisms as early as the 1860s, he didn't put his hypothesis to the test until the late 1870s. In an 1878 lecture The Germ Theory And Its Applications To Medicine And Surgery read before the French Academy of Sciences on April 29th, 1878, Pasteur had already hypothesized that there was a “virus” (i.e. some form of chemical poison as the word didn't mean an obligate intracellular parasite at that time) in the solutions of the bacterial cultures that he was working with. He then went on to claim that this poison would accumulate within the body of the animal as the bacteria grew. Interestingly, he then noted that his hypothesis presupposes the forming and necessary existence of the bacteria, thus admitting that his hypothesis was not based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
**

Source:

The Germ Hypothesis Part 1

Pasteur's Problems

mikestone.substack.com

The irony is that I strongly believe that the idea that poison is the true cause of a lot of CPE (cytopathic effect) is the truth. Louis Pasteur couldn't find existence for bacteria causing the problem because there was none. Those who no longer believe in biological viruses say that there is in fact no viruses either, just microbes, such as exosomes, that are labelled as such.



I don't believe in unicorns, though I have heard that the idea of them may have come from rhinoceroses, which do have a big horn (as well as a smaller one, but the big one tends to stick out more). There are also narwhals, that were apparently killed and their horns then sold off as unicorn horns. My point is that electron microscopy has clearly seen various microbes and passed some of them off as biological viruses, but that doesn't mean that they actually have the parasitical characteristics that biological viruses are said to have.

Repeating the same thing over and over is not a discussion. It is simply you spouting the same thing over and over.

This is where we are at and where it will always be until you actually are willing to look at any evidence other than your 2 to 3 sources.

This is the basis of your position.
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
Scott: - I have yet to find a study that provides solid evidence that biological viruses are real.

We have nothing to discuss since you refuse to look at any evidence that shows your sources are wrong.

At this point anyone can ask an AI to show them the critiques for A Farewell to Virology.

I think we have reached the point where it might be time to follow ChatGPT which said when someone says viruses don't exist - "The appropriate response is to say ‘that’s nice, the grown‑ups are talking.’”

 

[Scott]

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.

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.

And yet, they are supposedly everywhere, in the air, on surfaces, etc. Virologists can't have it both ways.

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.

That is certainly what virologists would have us believe. I have yet to see any solid evidence that this happens though.

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.

A contagion implies not only that something causes harm to people but that it reproduces. In terms of harm alone, poisons and malnutrition can also cause harm to cells. In order to ascertain that these aren't the true causes of cells suffering from CPE (cytopathic effect) after they are allegedly exposed to viruses, studies with proper controls must be done. This is what the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement quoted and referenced in the opening post of this thread are arguing.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

And yet, they are supposedly everywhere, in the air, on surfaces, etc. Virologists can't have it both ways.



That is certainly what virologists would have us believe. I have yet to see any solid evidence that this happens though.

You can't see what you refuse to look at.

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