Scott
Verified User
I'm sure the Catholic church could have said much the same thing about the sun revolving around the earth. Much more advanced than that outdated Copernicus who first came up with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun.
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
I'm sure the Catholic church could have said much the same thing about the sun revolving around the earth. Much more advanced than that outdated Copernicus who first came up with the idea that the earth revolved around the sun.
Scott
Verified User
I didn't jump to any conclusion. It was the only logical conclusion from your statements.Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.Once again, you just use pseudoscience and fallacious logic.Again, it looks a lot more complicated then you seem to believe. Here's a website on testing for various poisons:
Certified Poison, Toxins & Heavy Metal Testing Lab
The Carlson Company offers poison & toxin testing for hair, blood, & urine. Get certified food, lead & heavy metal poisoning tests with fast results.thecarlsoncompany.net
Feel free to try to explain your logic.
Scott
Verified User
I can't speak for environments, but detecting poisons in people isn't always easy. From the article I linked to previously:
**
Q 3:
A: Certain poisons, such as some heavy metals or plant-based toxins, can be challenging to detect due to their low concentrations or unique chemical properties. However, advancements in analytical techniques have significantly improved the ability to identify even trace amounts of various toxins. It’s crucial to consult with toxicology experts and utilize state-of-the-art testing methods for accurate detection.**
The same website makes it clear that trying to determine whether someone has been poisoned is at times best done with guidance:
**
Q 5: What is the name of the Poison test?
A: The specific test for poison detection depends on the suspected toxin. Common tests include immunoassays, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The choice of test is determined by the type of poison and the required sensitivity of the analysis. Consultation with a toxicology expert or healthcare professional can guide the selection of the most appropriate test for a given situation.**
ZenMode
Well-known member
Because there has to be a conspiracy to keep the alleged lie of biological viruses going. That's why you compare a religion to a science - to demonstrate how people can be lead to believe lies in large numbers.
For a variety of reasons, people can be lead to believe nonsensical things. Religion is a great example. In the case of religion, people are inclined to believe/have faith for a variety of reasons. It feels good to believe that an all-powerful being is floating in space, watching over you, designing a path for you through life and hoping the best for you, while planning an eternity of bliss when you die....and all you have to do is have faith that this being exists! So easy!
However, unlike science, there's nothing new being discovered in religion. Same old books, same old stories all written by scientifically ignorant men who couldn't explain where the sun went at night and thought burying dead mammals under buildings would bring good luck.
The science of virology is absolutely nothing like any religion. There are new discoveries happening all the time. Those discoveries change the scientific views of viruses and make us more intelligent in regard to viruses. Unlike religion, there's no "feel good" aspect to virology. Scientists aren't inclined to blindly believe documentation from hundreds years ago because in any given minute, past documentation can be easily verified or disproven. That is not true with religion. Yes, science has repeatedly put a beat down on the claims of religious books, but there's ultimately no way to sufficiently prove God's don't exist enough to completely eliminate religion.
I've brought up HIV a couple of times. Like other viruses, virologists have identified, studied and developed treatments for HIV. The measles virus used to kill hundreds of thousands of people a year. Science identified and developed a vaccine for the measles virus. Are you denying that the visible symptom of measles, little red dots, exist? Do you believe that the measles vaccine is all a big lie being propagated, decade after decade, by the entirety of the scientific world, from virology to the doctor administering the measles vaccine?
You keep saying that you aren't claiming a grand conspiracy. If that's true then explain how the lie of the measles virus stays alive without a grand conspiracy. And no, comparing biology to religion, while saying "well people just believe things sometimes", is not a sufficient answer.
Now you are just being disingenuous. Mike Stone goes far beyond just stating there is no evidence that viruses exist. Mike Stone accuses science of fraud and not following the scientific method. Mike Stone simply cherry picks a few things to try to claim there is no evidence while ignoring the majority of the evidence that shows viruses exist. Mike Stone uses multiple logical fallacies to try to show that viruses don't exist. Mike Stone uses circular reasoning in that he declares that viruses should act like bacteria and then when they don't act like bacteria he uses that as his basis for saying there is no evidence.
If Mike Stone says Virology is a lie, Intro to ViroLIEgy, why do you consider that he is just saying that there is no evidence? He is saying the existence of viruses is a lie. He is certainly implying exactly the thing you say he doesn't.
But lets examine Mike Stone's fallacy. He starts with the assumption that viruses are bacteria and have to act exactly like bacteria.
Mike Stone is using pseudoscience. He starts with this premise about viruses.
- The lack of purification and isolation of the particles claimed to be “viruses”
- The pseudoscientific nature of cell culture experiments
- The importance of satisfying Koch’s Postulates
- The reliance on indirect evidence (e.g., cell cultures, electron microscopy images, “antibodies,” and genomes)
When his premise fails, rather than changing his theory as required by the scientific method he simply assumes he is correct. His entire premise is based on faulty logic and pseudoscience.
ROFLMAO.
What experiments has Mike Stone done?
What experiments has Sam Bailey done?
Since they have done no experiments can we both agree that Mike Stone and Sam Bailey are not using the scientific method?
The scientific method requires you to abandon or change your theory if it is not supported by observation or experiment.
Many experiments about gravity had the wrong assumptions, does that mean there is no evidence of gravity?
Many experiments about light had wrong assumptions, does that mean there is no evidence of light?
Mike Stone has not pointed to any black swans. He has simply said we should ignore the way science works.
Science requires you to change your theory if you can't support it. The theory about viruses has change over the last 100 years. Mike Stone insists we use the discarded scientific theories from 100 years ago. It is Mike Stone that is not following the scientific method since he refuses to use or accept any changes in the science of viruses.
Mike Stone is practicing pseudoscience since he continues to rely on an abandoned theory as the basis for his arguments that the science is wrong. Mike Stone is not following the scientific method since he refuses to even look (observe) any science since the experiments he claim are flawed.
This is about logic and how you don't use it. The fact that people believe in bacteria doesn't affect your logic. Either your logic is good and can be applied equally or it is flawed and can't be applied equally. Clearly you agree that your logic is flawed since you keep saying bacteria exist.
ROFLMAO. You don't know the first thing about science. You have just said science can't test for anything if they don't already know it exists.
There was no evidence that quarks exist before we experimented and found the first quark
There was no evidence that bacteria existed before we found the first bacteria.
Viruses were found to exist just like bacteria and quarks were found to exist. Something was observed and theories were formed and experiments were conducted to test the theories. If the experiments failed then new or revised theories were formed and more experiments were conducted. If those experiments filed then new or again revised theories were formed and more experiments were conducted. This was repeated until a theory was shown to be close to being correct. Even then, experiments and theory revisions can occur.
Mike Stone only looks at the first theory and experiments and then ignores the rest of the scientific method in his pseudoscientific BS.
ROFLMAO
Oh.. so now DDT was never the cause of polio?
Perhaps you should read then respond to the rest of my post which you purposely ignored.
Why did DDT only cause polio for a couple of decades?
Why did phosphorus fertilizer only cause polio for a couple of decades?
Why did they both STOP causing polio?
The problem is you demand the scientific method and then you completely ignore the scientific method.
If DDT could cause polio then it should always cause polio. It can't suddenly stop causing polio in 1964.
If phosphorus fertilizer can cause polio then why did it stop causing polio? More phosphorus fertilizer is in use today than at any time before 1950.
Not only do your arguments fail any application of the scientific method they fail any application of simple logic.
Poisons don't suddenly out of the blue stop being poisons for no reason. Your arguments about DDT become laughable when examined with actual data. Polio stopped occurring in 1964 with a vaccine for a virus. DDT was used heavily until 1972. You have no explanation for why DDT stopped causing polio. You only have an idiotic deflection that it wasn't the only cause. The data shows it was not likely to be the cause because the use doesn't completely coincide with the outbreaks. As I have stated before, the Yankees winning the world series more closely aligns with the polio outbreaks than DDT does.
Did you suddenly think viruses exist?
Viruses cause all kinds of diseases and not just in humans. Viruses cause plant disease. Viruses cause disease in all animal life. Bird flu is caused by a virus.
You have not shown one of those illnesses that could possibly be caused by radiation. The way radiation works disproves any claim that it is the cause of a virus illness.
Scott
Verified User
On that, at least, we can agree.
Scott
Verified User
ROFLMAO.I definitely did. The very first source I linked to on the subject, for a start. Here's the summary of said article:
**
Story at-a-glance:
**
- We are told that the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case.
- There are scientists who believe that polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.
- At the time of its popularity, DDT was considered not only “safe and effective” but also good for the prevention of polio.
- However, the opposite could be true, and DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic.”
Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science
We’re told the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case. There are scientists who believe polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.childrenshealthdefense.org
There you go again
DDT could have been a major contributing factor to the “polio epidemic.”
How can DDT be a major contributing factor to the polio epidemic in 1915-1917 when it was not used at all?
There was more than one polio epidemic. While you're right that there was one between 1915-1917, the larger one was between around 1940 and 1960. That's the one where DDT may have played a decisive role. As to what caused the polio epidemic off 1915-17 in the U.S., it looks like other pesticides, such as arsenic, were to blame. There's a long article on this which can be found here:
Note that the author seems to believe that the polio virus is real and did do some of the damage, though he also admits it's possible it's not at the end.
Scott
Verified User
Irrelevant. I could also say that you have been "unable to refute any of my critiques" of your assertions, and it would be equally irrelevant. The important thing here isn't whether we can refute each other's beliefs, but rather whether we think it's worth spending additional time to try to persuade each other and/or audience members that our different beliefs are right or at least worth considering.
You haven't provided any evidence I find to be credible that Mike Stone has engaged in any logical fallacies.
They have examined various claims by virologists, as well as various experiments said virologists have used to justify those claims and found those experiments to be wanting, as do I.
Scott
Verified User
You've made multiple unsubstantiated assertions over the years. I was addressing your "Just because you believe something doesn't make it believable" one. In case you're skeptical you actually said something so brash, it's in the following post:
Scott
Verified User
The last word in the quote I was responding to- it's in the nested quotes above.
Scott
Verified User
The following article come to mind:
An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory
The germ “theory:" a scientific foundation or a logical fallacy?
mikestone.substack.com
You mean the article that says this?
The Age of Polio, an epidemic he believed was a result of environmental toxins triggering the virus.
It seems you now want to argue there is evidence of viruses existing. Which is it?
The author admits no such thing. He simple recognizes that one of the critiques of his co-factor argument is that the virus doesn't exist. Stating that others are saying something is not admitting it is possible. It simply recognizes that people are saying it.
The first critique he mentions is that the virus acts alone and there is no need for any co-factor. (Does the author admit that viruses are real?)
He also says the third critique is that the co-factor was NOT arsenic but could be something else. (Does the author admit that viruses are real?)
It's pretty standard in writing an article to recognize other opinions and point out what they are. It doesn't make them the author's opinion or say the author even thinks them possible.
The author ends with this --
But it's also true one needs confidence in one's theories until and unless they lose their explanatory power, as Karl Popper wrote. "Propose theories which can be criticized. Think about possible decisive falsifying experiments—crucial experiments. But do not give up your theories too easily—not, at any rate, before you have critically examined your criticism."
This is something that Mark Stone and Dr Sam Bailey seem unable to do. At no point do they address any criticism of their outlandish stance on viruses.
Scott
Verified User
Let's backtrack to Mike Stone's original claim, which you quoted in post #336 and is at the top of the nested quotes above, followed by your criticism in red. To whit:
**
This method, still used by virologists today, asserts “viral” presence based on lab-created, artificial effects observed in cultures of human and animal cells.
**
The quote was from the following article:
The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 1: The “Lipovirus”
How a speculative agent with no direct evidence was framed as a causative "virus."
mikestone.substack.com
In the original text, part of the text is hyperlinked, as it is above. The hyperlink goes to another of his articles, this one:
The Mirror Cytopathic Effect
Reflections of a Failed Pseudoscientific Hypothesis Science is the systematic study of the natural world. As outlined in Chapter 2 of Environmental Science, its fundamental goal is “to underst…
viroliegy.com
In that article, Mr. Stone quotes studies from 1997 and 1999, though his main focus is "Vlail Petrovich Kaznacheev—one of Russia’s leading medical scientists and founder of key research institutes"
Anyway, my point is that the article provides plenty of evidence that the foundation of virology rests on this method. I admit that I don't know how often this method is used today, but I strongly suspect that without this method, no other method would work, as you need to start somewhere with the databases of alleged viruses and this appears to be the starting point.
Since I have provided no evidence you find credible that Mike Stone has engaged in logical fallacies I will give you an opportunity to tell us what his premise is. What is the premise from which Mike Stone is working?
Is it accurate to say that Mike Stone's premise is that viruses should act like bacteria? Yes/No - Explain
Wow...
You don't seem to understand the the word UNBELIEVABLE is what is defined in my post because the entire post refers back to my earlier statement that you said was false.
At this point all you seem to be doing is deflecting and trying to ignore the origin of this discussion by using the equivocation fallacy.
Calling an argument by Mike Stone that is bullshit what it factually is an insult? Did Mike Stone tell you he was insulted or were you insulted for him? Are you Mike Stone?
At this point, it seems you are attempting to deflect from trying to defend Mike Stone's claims be pretending to be insulted? Is it because you can't actually defend his claims so are trying to change the topic?
Simple question for you. Is it a bullshit argument for someone to rely on logical fallacies and false implications? Or is it a valid argument to do that?