APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

Let's examine the scientific method.
The scientific method is this -

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-507-w.pdf

State the problem
Form a hypothesis
Observe and Experiment
Interpret Data
Draw Conclusions
(Revise the hypothesis as needed and repeat)

Do you agree that this is the scientific method? Do you agree that something that fails to use this method is conducting pseudoscience?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

So you are admitting you can't make any verification of Mike Stone's claims. You simply accept his statements on faith.

 

[Scott]

Somehow, I doubt that you've read all of Mike Stone's articles. He's pointed out -many- flaws in the methodologies used by virologists. Speaking of which, I recall there was a post where I took a deep dive into Mike Stone's work on virologist methodologies and that you never responded to that post, post #343 to be precise. It's here:

APP - Post in thread 'Do biological viruses actually exist?'

Monday at 6:33 PM

That's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that virology's methodology for finding biological viruses is pseudoscientific, but since most people are unaware of what methods need to be employed for a. methodology to be scientific, most people don't realize this.

You are claiming that you know the methodology when you refuse to actually look at the methodology.

On the contrary, I've spent a lot of time on the methodology. Apparently, you've forgotten. Allow me to refresh your memory. From one of Mike Stone's articles:
**
In the 1950s, virology began to emerge as a...

• Scott

Mike Stone does NOT do any deep dives into the methodologies of virology.

I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

He cherry picks less than 1% of their methods.

Hold on there. I believe even you once said that virologists only have 3 methods of "discovering" biological viruses. Assuming that Mike Stone is correct that the method he describes is one of them, he'd be analyzing 1/3 or 33% of the methods used. But if you'd really like to get into all of the methods currently used, I'm pretty sure that Mark Bailey's 67 page essay, A Farewell to Virology would cover them all, including the method used to "discover" the alleged Cov 2 virus, alleged to be the cause of Covid 19. His essay can be seen here:

https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-FAREWELL-TO-VIROLOGY-Expert-Edition-V1.2.pdf

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone does NOT do any deep dives into the methodologies of virology. He cherry picks less than 1% of their methods. I have told you this repeatedly and posted links to papers that Mike Stone never addresses. You simply refuse to read anything that would show that Mike Stone is using faulty logic and cherry picking to try to confirm his and your bias.

Let's recap.
Viruses are not bacteria. Humans are not bacteria. Requiring that viruses be isolated the same way as bacteria is a logical fallacy. In order for the logic to actually work you would have to apply the same rules to humans as you do to viruses. Failure to do that shows you are using pseudoscience. The fact that humans and viruses can't be isolated exactly like bacteria is the black swan that proves that isolation argument wrong. Before you start the nonsense about viruses and bacteria are both microbes, that is also nonsense. Viruses do not have a cellular structure. Humans and bacteria do have a cellular structure. Since humans and bacteria both have a cellular structure by your logic humans don't exist since they can't be isolated the same way as viruses. You can't pick one similar feature and then declare the similarity means all parts must be exactly alike.

At this point I have shown that the requirement that viruses need to be isolated the same way as bacteria is nonsense that is based on a fallacy. If you don't except that then you are stuck in your confirmation bias.

Well, he has this book you see... And he's mentioned several times that this author of that book has said something that he thinks is right [snip]

You keep on saying that I have a book. I have many books, but based on what you say above, as well as the fact that we're talking about biological viruses, I doubt you're actually referring to any of them. Which means that you're probably referring to one of the things I've linked to here- the 2 page statement in the opening post, Mark Bailey's 67 page essay on virology or one of the many articles I've quoted and referenced. The fact that you're so vague "said something that he thinks is right" suggests you haven't really been paying much attention to what the author said as well.

 

[Scott]

I'm going to assume you meant "That is precisely -what- you're implying...". In any case, I don't understand why you think that my comparing virology to scientology implies that I think that there's some grand conspiracy to "keep the lies going".

Because there has to be a conspiracy to keep the alleged lie of biological viruses going.

No, all that's needed is for most people to either not understand how the scientific method works or, if they do, to not check to see whether virology actually adheres to it.

 

[Scott]

As I've mentioned in the past, there are thousands of religious sects in the world- that doesn't mean that everyone is 'keeping the lies going'. People just believe a lot of different things despite the lack of evidence for many of those things.

For a variety of reasons, people can be lead to believe nonsensical things.

Here we agree.

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!

When it comes to religion, I agree with you in part. It all depends on how we're defining religion. I once saw a definition of religion as a set of beliefs. We all have beliefs, so if we define it that way, everyone has a "religion", even atheists. Now, I know that atheists would probably strongly reject being told they have a religion, so we can keep it to beliefs. The bottom line with beliefs is that some beliefs are evidence based while others aren't. I certainly agree that simply having "faith" that if you believe certain things, you'll have an eternity of bliss doesn't seem very logical to me, though there are many religions that require more than simply having faith that said religion is the truth. I myself am a pantheist, a religion that was started by someone who used to be jewish and also a religion that Albert Einstein really liked even if he technically stayed jewish all of his life.

 

[Scott]

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.

Again, I think that really depends on the religion in question, and perhaps even more importantly, individuals within that religion. Albert Einstein was nominally jewish, but he was also making great progress in the scientific field. I would be very surprised if his scientific discoveries didn't affect his religious views.

 

[Scott]

The science of virology is absolutely nothing like any religion.

I don't even agree with your assertion that it's a science to begin with.

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.

If only that were true. It is my hope that one day, you realize that virology is a lot more dogmatic then you have been led to believe.

 

[Scott]

I've brought up HIV a couple of times. Like other viruses, virologists have identified, studied [snip]

Virologists have certainly claimed these things. I personally haven't seen solid evidence that any biological virus was ever discovered, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, quote and link to it.

 

[Scott]

You're changing the goalposts. Your original claim was "the fact that there were failues in the claims doesn't disprove viruses". I simply pointed out that Mike Stone never made that claim. Now, if we take away the double negative, you are asking if he claims that there is evidence for biological viruses. I think we can agree that he is consistent in saying that he sees no solid evience for their existence. I hope you realize that there is a difference between claiming that there is no solid evidence for something and proving that something doesn't exist. Put another way- I've seen no solid evidence that unicorns exist. That's not the same thing as saying that I have proven that they don't exist.

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.

I never said he wasn't doing those things as well. What he is -not- doing is saying that there is proof that biological viruses don't exist.

 

[Scott]

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 [snip]

You know, I'm not even sure he's stated that there is no evidence that biological viruses exist. If he did state that, I think it'd suggest that the "Settling the Virus debate" 2 page statement that he signed wouldn't make sense. Why look to settle something that he believes is already settled? So I think his stance would be that he personally has found no evidence that biological viruses exist, but that he's open to it being found and examining it.

 

[Scott]

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.

I've seen no evidence that 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".

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone uses multiple logical fallacies to try to show that viruses don't exist.

Haven't seen any evidence of that assertion either. Continuing...

Mike Stone uses circular reasoning in that he declares that viruses should act like bacteria [snip]

I hiaven't seen him declare that. Can you quote him declaring that?

 

[Scott]

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.

Have you considered that what he's trying to convey is that the assurances that virology is a scientific field is what he's calling a lie?

 

[Scott]

But lets examine Mike Stone's fallacy. He starts with the assumption that viruses are bacteria and have to act exactly like bacteria.

I've seen no evidence that he's made either of your assertions above.

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone... 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)

That -sounds- like things Mike Stone would say. Is that a quote from him or are you paraphrasing?

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.

Are you suggesting that Mike Stone only has 1 premise? If so, what do you think his premise is?

 

[Scott]

Both sides have done experiments- the main issue is which ones followed the scientific methodology.

ROFLMAO.
What experiments has Mike Stone done?
What experiments has Sam Bailey done?

I'm not aware of them having done any, but they're hardly the only people who have become skeptical of the notion that biological viruses actually exist. As a matter of fact, Mike Stone's most recent article concerns another substacker who -has- been doing experiments in order to gather evidence as to whether or not biological viruses exist. The problem is that this individual has some character flaws. You can read Mike Stone's article on the matter here:

Out of Control Addendum

An Evidence-Based Rebuttal to the Most Serious Claims Made Against Me

mikestone.substack.com

 

[Scott]

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?

You don't have to do your own experiments in order to gather evidence as to the likelihood that biological viruses exist. You can examine experiments done by others. Mike Stone has done a -lot- of that. Some articles where he does so:

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

The “Virus” Deception: Case Studies in Pseudoscience — Part 2: SMON Says

"Act like a virus!"

mikestone.substack.com

The scientific method requires you to abandon or change your theory if it is not supported by observation or experiment.

Exactly! Unfortunately, virologists have been rather resistant to doing this.

 

[Scott]

I have already written a post getting into the evidence that many experiments conducted by virologists weren't following the scientific method in post #343. In essence, virology has metaphorically posited that there are only white swans, while Mike Stone and others have pointed out the many black swans in their methodology.

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?

Ofcourse not. I haven't closely followed the evidence for gravity, but from what I have heard, they've worked it out pretty well at this point. Just the matter of finding a way to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, or a theory of everything, as it's perhaps best known. As to light, I haven't heard of any recent controversies there recently, so I assume there is general agreement there.

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone has not pointed to any black swans. He has simply said we should ignore the way science works.

I strongly disagree with both of your assertions above.