APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

Can we agree that, assuming that DDT is in fact a cause of polio, that a drastic reduction in the use of DDT would result in a drastic reduction in polio cases?
We can agree with that. Can you agree that if polio stopped and DDT use continued for another 8 years that DDT could not be the cause of polio because science says that causation doesn't suddenly cease to exist if there is actual causation?
DDT -was- banned, at least in the U.S., in 1972. Tessa Lena talks about this in her article:
**
DDT as a possible cause of polio

There is a theory that DDT poisoning was a major contributor to paralysis diagnosed as polio. The timeline supports it, and it is one of those cases where I have to humbly accept not knowing the definitive answer at this very second.

The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1954. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. Polio was officially eradicated in the U.S. in 1979. (The vaccine-derived version of polio (!) is reported to be spreading now in developing countries, and according to ABC News, “More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus.”)

**

Source:
DDT was banned in 1972. Polio cases dropped dramatically in 1957 and were almost completely gone by 1963. That shows that DDT could not be the causation. This is some pretty simple observational science that you continue to ignore.
For starters, Tessa Lena stated that polio wasn't officially eradicated in the U.S. until 1979. Secondly, while DDt may not have been banned until 1972, its production was severely curtailed by the early 60s. Perhaps most important of all, however, Tessa Lena never argued that DDT was the only possible cause of polio. Looking through her article, I came upon another article that I've seen before and that has a graph that I think is interesting. I'll share it below:
Official eradication occurs when there have been zero cases for some time. What evidence do you have of DDT production being curtailed in the 1960s? Your chart includes 4 different pesticides and only deals with production, not usage.
**
Pesticide Composite: Summary

Just over three billion pounds of persistent pesticides are represented in the graph below.

Virtually all peaks and valleys correlate with a direct one-to-one relationship with each pesticide as it enters and leaves the US market. Generally, pesticide production precedes polio incidence by 1 to 2 years. I assume that this variation is due to variations in reporting methods and the time it takes to move pesticides from factory to warehouse, through distribution channels, onto the food crops and to the dinner table.

A composite of the three previous graphs, of the persistent pesticides -- lead, arsenic, and the dominant organochlorines (DDT and BHC) -- is represented in the following:

View attachment 56019

These four chemicals were not selected arbitrarily. These are representative of the major pesticides in use during the last major polio epidemic. They persist in the environment as neurotoxins that cause polio-like symptoms, polio-like physiology, and were dumped onto and into human food at dosage levels far above that approved by the FDA. They directly correlate with the incidence of various neurological diseases called "polio" before 1965. They were utilized, according to Biskind, in the "most intensive campaign of mass poisoning in known human history."
**

Source:
No. the peaks don't correlate one to one. The peaks show that in some cases production preceded polio and in other cases it followed polio. It shows nothing more than a random correlation. If there really was a correlation we should see a spike in polio in 1957 after the spike in pesticide production. Since there is no spike and the spike in polio in 1959 happens at the same time a a reduction in those 4 pesticides it is almost impossible for those pesticides to be the cause. The New York Yankees winning the world series more closely correlates to the polio outbreak since the Yankees won every year from 1947 to 1953.

What does happen that leads to the drops in cases is a vaccine. The vaccine is made from weakened polio virus. The vaccine is introduced in 1955 and we see the drop off in cases really start to occur. In 1954 there were 38,716 polio cases. In 1956 there were 15,140 cases. By 1961 there were only 1,312 cases and 1964 saw 122 cases.

Then if we are actually using science your graph can be completely ignored since nowhere does it provide an axis showing the quantity of pesticide produced. This is something that is either done by someone ignorant of how data is to be represented in a graph or by someone that is purposely modifying the look of data to achieve their desired results.

- the most interesting thing about that graph is that is it is clearly pseudoscience since it doesn't provide any scale for pesticide production. Then the graph also clearly shows there is no cause since production leads cases and production follows cases. One could as easily claim that polio causes pesticide production and be just as accurate.
 
For starters, Tessa Lena stated that polio wasn't officially eradicated in the U.S. until 1979. Secondly, while DDt may not have been banned until 1972, its production was severely curtailed by the early 60s. Perhaps most important of all, however, Tessa Lena never argued that DDT was the only possible cause of polio. Looking through her article, I came upon another article that I've seen before and that has a graph that I think is interesting. I'll share it below:
**
Pesticide Composite: Summary

Just over three billion pounds of persistent pesticides are represented in the graph below.

Virtually all peaks and valleys correlate with a direct one-to-one relationship with each pesticide as it enters and leaves the US market. Generally, pesticide production precedes polio incidence by 1 to 2 years. I assume that this variation is due to variations in reporting methods and the time it takes to move pesticides from factory to warehouse, through distribution channels, onto the food crops and to the dinner table.

A composite of the three previous graphs, of the persistent pesticides -- lead, arsenic, and the dominant organochlorines (DDT and BHC) -- is represented in the following:

View attachment 56019

These four chemicals were not selected arbitrarily. These are representative of the major pesticides in use during the last major polio epidemic. They persist in the environment as neurotoxins that cause polio-like symptoms, polio-like physiology, and were dumped onto and into human food at dosage levels far above that approved by the FDA. They directly correlate with the incidence of various neurological diseases called "polio" before 1965. They were utilized, according to Biskind, in the "most intensive campaign of mass poisoning in known human history."
**

Source:
As a side note, your chart lists work by Hayes and Lawes who did extensive work in DDT.

This is from Hayes in 1969 about DDT.


Eat Salmon With DDT For Years Without Harmful Effect , Says Professor

You can eat Coho Salmon containing 19 parts per million of DDT , mornmg , noon , and night as your total diet for a least 19 years without any harmful effect . Dr Wayland J . Hayes , foimer Chief of Toxicology of the United States Public Health Seivice , testified as DDT heaimgs resumed in Madison Di Hayes based his conclusion on the results of his research with DDT factory workers with intensive exposure , and with human volunteers to whom DDT was fed at higher levels without ill effect Dr Hayes


This seems to be pattern with you and your sources. The actual work you cite often directly contradicts your claims. This is further evidence of your side cherry picking select things and ignoring 99% of the rest of the work so you can confirm your bias.
 
I refuse to discuss what?



My refusal to look at what, your 20 papers that you believe offer solid evidence that biological viruses exist? As I've said before, I'm not averse to looking at selected quoted passages that you think make your case, but I'm not going to go on a fishing expedition to try to find evidence for your position. I call that asking your opponent to do your homework for you. If you think there's something within those papers that makes your case, quote it and then provide the reference to the paper(s) in question.
Bottom line - you refuse to look at evidence and then claim you have seen no evidence.
 
Sigh -.- Just as I said that people allegedly dying of Covid didn't have fake deaths, people who get sick from the flu or covid aren't getting 'fake' sick. Everyone is getting sick from -something-, the issue is what that something is.
Right, so you don't know what made people sick when the scientific world claimed HIV existed, but it certainly wasn't what the scientific world was claiming.
Your assertion above starts with an assumption that I don't share, that being that anything involved with the study of biological viruses is scientific. From what I've seen, virology is nothing but pseudoscience. As to HIV in particular, there's a website dedicated to questioning whether or not the HIV virus exists. Just like the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, quoted and referenced in the opening post of this thread, they too have a statement on what would be needed to prove or disprove the HIV theory of AIDS. It can be seen here:
 
If biological viruses aren't real, then clearly other things must be making people sick.
You don't know what those things are

I'm using the same definition that the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" are using. That definition, in turn, is just a definition used in a standard textbook on molecular biology. To whit:
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”
Source:
 
Your assertion above starts with an assumption that I don't share, that being that anything involved with the study of biological viruses is scientific.
Correct. You have said that biology is comparable to religion, specifically Scientology.
From what I've seen, virology is nothing but pseudoscience.
Thanks for proving The point I just made above.
As to HIV in particular, there's a website dedicated to questioning whether or not the HIV virus exists.
It seems pretty clear that you have gotten yourself into the same type of confirmation bias that leads people to believe the earth is flat, but you don't realize that you've gotten yourself into that situation.
Just like the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, quoted and referenced in the opening post of this thread, they too have a statement on what would be needed to prove or disprove the HIV theory of AIDS. It can be seen here:
Again, We are back to the Grand conspiracy thing, where you apparently believe that these handful or less of people have figured out what the entirety of the scientific world, every world government, etc has not figured out and you apparently seem to believe that this is a reasonable position to take.
 
Last edited:
You're certainly good at exagerations.

I'd say that claiming that the measles virus -does- exist is actually worse than claiming that it doesn't,
Right, that is the problem. You have been convinced by conspiracy theorists to believe something that is flat out crazy. This is flat earther type of stuff.
but the best approach is to do neither. Proving that things exist or don't exist is frequently beyond our capabilities.
Not even close. Sure, we could live in a matrix type of world where everything that we believe exists actually doesn't, and is only some kind of computer projection into our mind, but if you don't believe that biological virus exist, then you are not getting good information.

Instead, focusing on what theory has the most evidence is generally the best way to go.
 
I'm sure you agree that even for those who believe in biological viruses, viruses aren't the only cause of illness.
What other "things" make you ill and how are you going to prove that they exist?

For example, food poisoning. How do you know that food poisoning exists? Could it not just be a coincidence and it actually be some else that is making people sick?

You're deflecting. The issue here is whether there is any solid evidence that biological viruses exist, not what is causing illnesses. To determine that, I think we first need to look at how germ theory, which is the foundation of virology, came to play such a dominant role in ideas as to what makes us sick. Mike Stone wrote an article on germ theory just last month. Quoting the first part of it below:
**
To those familiar with my work, it comes as no surprise that I take great interest in highlighting the forgotten voices from the formative years of germ “theory” and virology—those who examined the rise of these pseudoscientific fields with critical eyes. These individuals had front-row seats to history, and they witnessed firsthand the unscientific, contradictory foundations that shaped our modern beliefs about health, disease, and wellness. They recognized the manipulation by vested interests and warned against the manufactured acceptance of germ “theory” by a fearful, uninformed public. And they spoke out—attempting to avert what they foresaw as a grave disaster.

Amongst the earliest of these voices was the great French chemist Antoine Béchamp, a rival of Pasteur and proponent of the competing terrain theory. He astutely recognized how the public had been misled in the preface to his 1867 publication La Théorie du Microzyma (translation from Bechamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology):

“The general public, however intelligent, are struck only by that which it takes little trouble to understand. They have been told that the interior of the body is something more or less like the contents of a vessel filled with wine, and that this interior is not injured – that we do not become ill, except when germs, originally created morbid, penetrate into it from without, and then become microbes.
The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master; they believe it because it is simple and easy to understand; they believe and they repeat that the microbe makes us ill without inquiring further, because they have not the leisure – nor, perhaps, the capacity – to probe to the depths that which they are asked to believe.”​

Decades before germ “theory” reached mainstream dominance, American physician Dr. Edward P. Hurd raised concerns about its flawed logic. In his 1874 paper On the Germ Theory of Disease, Hurd questioned whether germs were truly the cause of disease rather than mere byproducts of it. He specifically criticized the fallacy of affirming the consequent—the mistaken belief that if cause A (a germ) is always found with effect B (a disease), then A must have caused B. Hurd pointed out that simply showing a germ is always present with a disease does not prove causation. To establish a valid causal link, one must introduce the germ into a healthy environment and observe whether the disease follows—something germ theorists had failed to do:

“There is no proof that all that have as yet been found are not accompaniments, or effects, and not causes of the diseased conditions with which they are found associated. Halber has not yet completed the cycle of proof necessary to establish tho causal nexus between one single disease and the micrococcus found witli that disease. He has relied exclusively on what logicians call the method of agreement—the method of difference he has not tried. It is of little account for him to show that the supposed cause A always exists with the disease B, and hence B is the effect of A. Into a preexisting set of circumstances where B does not exist he must introduce A and produce the disease. This he has not attempted, and hence his speculations are of little worth.”
Another outspoken critic was Lionel S. Beale, pioneer of the microscope for medicine, who warned in 1878 how speculative claims—like germs causing disease—can rapidly gain traction through repetition and institutional backing. A few “authorities” assert, others repeat, officials endorse, and suddenly the world believes what was never proven:

“It is curious to observe how very easily in these days an untenable doctrine may be forced into notoriety, and taught far and wide as if it were actually demonstrated truth. A few authorities perhaps in Germany graphically portray what they please to call the results of observations, and after marshalling before the reader certain facts and arguments, remark that the evidence is perfectly conclusive in favour, say, of the view that certain contagious diseases are due to microzymes. Papers, with "new observations," soon follow, and confirm the original statement in every particular. Pupils, friends, admirers, accept and diffuse the new doctrine. Abstracts and memoirs multiply, and the conclusions arrived at abroad are supported and promulgated here, under the patronage of a government official, and published in a blue book. Those unacquainted with the art and mystery of transforming arbitrary assertions into scientific conclusions are easily convinced that the whole scientific world is agreed upon this one question at any rate, while in point of fact the speculative and far-fetched arguments would not have withstood careful and intelligent examination.”
Renowned British surgeon Dr. Lawson Tait, considered the greatest abdominal surgeon of his time, openly dismissed the fear of germs, once stating he would prefer a mass of germs over a wet sponge during surgery. In the 1887 paper An Address on the Development of Surgery and the Germ Theory, he declared:

“Let me only say that the best of all proof of the fallacy of their assertions is the fact that every attempt to elevate the germ facts of putrefaction into a germ theory of disease has miserably failed, and has failed nowhere so conspicuously as when obtruded into the realms of the treatment of disease.”​

In the 1894 paper A Criticism of the “Germ Theory of Disease,” Based on the Baconian Method, Dr. Tait wrote that the germ “theory” wasn’t a theory or even a hypothesis. It was just a jumble of facts—some true, many false— with no coherent explanation behind them. No working hypothesis. No actual theory. It was simply dogma:

“The germ theory of disease is not a theory at all. It is not even a hypothesis. It is a mere congeries of facts some truly stated, but mixed up with a far greater bulk inaccurately (indeed, untruly stated), upon which not even a working hypotheses has yet been suggested, far less a theory built.”
In 1913, Dr. Herbert Snow—a surgeon, medical writer, and cancer researcher—published the article The Germ Theory of Disease (which I reprinted with additional commentary here) in which he exposed the lack of scientific proof that any microbe causes disease. His opening remarks are scathing:

“The Germ Theory of Disease, so prominent in medical literature and practice, began with the efforts of the chemist Pasteur to apply to human, maladies—which, not being a doctor, he only knew academically—deductions drawn from the phenomenoa he had observed in fermentation. There has never been anything approaching scientific proof of the casual association of micro-organisms with disease; and in most instances wherein such an association has been pretended, there is abundant evidence emphatically contradicting that view. Yet most unfortunately this lame and defective theory has become the foundation of a very extensive system of quackery, in the prosecution of which millions of capital are embarked, and no expense spared to hoodwink the public with the more credulous members of the Medical Faculty. It may then not be out of place to survey, as fudicially as may be, the position in which the Germ Theory now stands; with the ill consequences very conspicuously resulting from its premature adoption as a proven axiom of Science.”

By the 1920s, cracks in the germ “theory” narrative were becoming harder to ignore. In Principles and Practice of Naturopathy (1925), Dr. E.W. Cordingley, M.D., N.D., A.M., observed that the germ “theory” of disease was weakening and due to be thrown away:

"Medical doctors are working on the germ theory of disease...But the germ theory is already weakening and is due for being thrown aside. Dr. Fraser of Canada and Dr. Powell of California have experimented with billions of germs of all varieties, but they have been unable to produce a single disease by the introduction of germs into human subjects. Dr. Waite tried for years to prove the germ theory, but he could not do so. During the World War an experiment was conducted at Gallop's Island Massachusetts, in which millions of influenza germs were injected into over one hundred men at the Government hospital, and no one got the flu. Germs are scavengers.”
**
 
Yes, it's a crass way of saying that something is flawed. If you want a productive conversation, you'd say it's flawed. If, on the other hand, you just want to argue with the other person for argument's sake, then you'll continue to use such crass terms.
Hmm.. so saying something is flawed is just arguing for argument's sake?

No, saying something is flawed is voicing your opinion or belief in a respectful way.

Because something is a crass way of saying it doesn't make it an argument for argument's sake it just another way of saying something.

Using base insults tends to result in 1 of 2 things:
1- The person who you're insulting (or whose beliefs you're insulting) responds in kind and starts insulting either you or your beliefs in a similar manner. This leads to a flame war.

2- The person you're insulting tunes out.

In both cases, any productive discussion tends to come to a halt.
 
OMFG. You seem to be unable to read or understand..

The second critique of the arsenic-virus theory is the toxin-only critique -- there’s no such thing as a poliovirus, or if there is it doesn’t trigger epidemics of paralytic illness; therefore, the “vaccine” didn’t really end those epidemics. Under this theory, It was banning DDT that caused the epidemics to diminish. Cases were camouflaged as "flaccid paralysis."

Then you completely ignore the earlier part of that section. The author in no way accepts the theory that the virus doesn't exist.
Quote him saying that he has discarded the possibility that the polio virus doesn't exist and you'd have a case.
Quote him saying that he has discarded the possibility that the polio virus exists and you would have a case.
Nice try, but you're the one who made the assertion that Dan Olmstead "in no way accepts the theory that the virus doesn't exist". Thus, it's up to you to provide solid evidence that that's the case.
ROFLMAO. You made the assertion that he did accept that theory.

Which theory are you referring to?
 
For me, the fact that he doesn't discard the theory suggests that he thinks it's possible that they're right. I'm the first to admit that I'm not sure -how- possible he thinks it is that the polio virus doesn't exist.
His entire theory piece about how DDT activated the virus and made it more virulent shows he discards the theory that the virus doesn't exist.

I suspect it's more that he thinks that's more likely. I think the fact that he also includes the theory that the polio virus doesn't exist suggests that he think it's -possible- that that theory may be correct. More importantly, -I- think that that theory is correct, and you're debating the issue with me, not him.
 
True. I found his evidence that polio had causes -other- than the alleged polio virus to be compelling. That's why I quoted and referenced his article.
You found it compelling that polio is a virus

Not what I said. I'll be a bit more precise this time to try to avoid you misunderstanding me. I found Dan Olmsted's evidence suggesting that polio may have been caused by other factors to be compelling. I don't find his notion that an alleged polio virus may have played a role to be compelling. For those who haven't yet seen Dan Olmstead's article on polio, it can be seen here:
 
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?

I believe so. As I've said in the past, I'm all for examining the scientific method. Ofcourse, we'd need to apply it to virology for it to be of use in our debate.
 
As I've pointed out elsewhere, he's referring to the a method that has been used to "discover" the Cov 2 virus. It just took me a bit to realize it.
Because Mike Stone says something doesn't make it true.

Agreed. However, in this case, Mike Stone didn't say it. I realized it on my own. From what I've read, the first method virologists used to "discover" biological viruses depended on seeing CPE, or the CytoPathic Effect, to be precise. Mike Stone's mentioned it many times and I then remembered that this same method is used in the most recent alleged "discoveries" of biological viruses, such as the Cov 2 virus, alleged to be the cause of Covid 19. Mark Bailey wrote a 67 page essay detailing why virology is pseudoscience, and he used the "discovery" of the alleged Cov 2 virus as an example of how this pseudoscience works. I've shown it to you in the past, but for those who haven't seen it, his essay can be seen here:
 
First of all, from what I gather, Dr. Tom Cowan did most if not all of the writing of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. The Bailey doctors were signatories though, suggesting they agreed with everything written. Secondly, the statement doesn't say that biological viruses have to act like bacteria. It -is- saying that they have to fulfill the definition of a biological virus- part of that definition involves being able to replicate. If it can't do that, it can't be a biological virus.
Of course it replicates.

By all means, attempt to provide solid evidence that any parasite alleged to be a biological virus actually replicates "within a host cell".
 
Can we agree that, assuming that DDT is in fact a cause of polio, that a drastic reduction in the use of DDT would result in a drastic reduction in polio cases?
We can agree with that. Can you agree that if polio stopped and DDT use continued for another 8 years that DDT could not be the cause of polio because science says that causation doesn't suddenly cease to exist if there is actual causation?

The main issue here is that neither I, nor anyone else I've cited, has asserted that DDT is the -sole- cause of polio. As a matter of fact, people I've cited have only asserted that it looks like DDT may be -a- cause of polio.
 
DDT -was- banned, at least in the U.S., in 1972. Tessa Lena talks about this in her article:
**
DDT as a possible cause of polio

There is a theory that DDT poisoning was a major contributor to paralysis diagnosed as polio. The timeline supports it, and it is one of those cases where I have to humbly accept not knowing the definitive answer at this very second.

The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1954. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. Polio was officially eradicated in the U.S. in 1979. (The vaccine-derived version of polio (!) is reported to be spreading now in developing countries, and according to ABC News, “More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus.”)

**

Source:
DDT was banned in 1972. Polio cases dropped dramatically in 1957 and were almost completely gone by 1963.

I see you haven't yet arrived at the part where I bring up the article that mentions multiple pesticides as possible causes of polio. I'll get to that in the next post.

For starters, Tessa Lena stated that polio wasn't officially eradicated in the U.S. until 1979. Secondly, while DDt may not have been banned until 1972, its production was severely curtailed by the early 60s. Perhaps most important of all, however, Tessa Lena never argued that DDT was the only possible cause of polio. Looking through her article, I came upon another article that I've seen before and that has a graph that I think is interesting. I'll share it below:
Official eradication occurs when there have been zero cases for some time. What evidence do you have of DDT production being curtailed in the 1960s? Your chart includes 4 different pesticides and only deals with production, not usage.

If you have a better chart, by all means, provide it. Right now, that chart is the best I have.
 
For starters, Tessa Lena stated that polio wasn't officially eradicated in the U.S. until 1979. Secondly, while DDt may not have been banned until 1972, its production was severely curtailed by the early 60s. Perhaps most important of all, however, Tessa Lena never argued that DDT was the only possible cause of polio. Looking through her article, I came upon another article that I've seen before and that has a graph that I think is interesting. I'll share it below:
**
Pesticide Composite: Summary

Just over three billion pounds of persistent pesticides are represented in the graph below.

Virtually all peaks and valleys correlate with a direct one-to-one relationship with each pesticide as it enters and leaves the US market. Generally, pesticide production precedes polio incidence by 1 to 2 years. I assume that this variation is due to variations in reporting methods and the time it takes to move pesticides from factory to warehouse, through distribution channels, onto the food crops and to the dinner table.

A composite of the three previous graphs, of the persistent pesticides -- lead, arsenic, and the dominant organochlorines (DDT and BHC) -- is represented in the following:

View attachment 56019

These four chemicals were not selected arbitrarily. These are representative of the major pesticides in use during the last major polio epidemic. They persist in the environment as neurotoxins that cause polio-like symptoms, polio-like physiology, and were dumped onto and into human food at dosage levels far above that approved by the FDA. They directly correlate with the incidence of various neurological diseases called "polio" before 1965. They were utilized, according to Biskind, in the "most intensive campaign of mass poisoning in known human history."
**

Source:
No. the peaks don't correlate one to one. The peaks show that in some cases production preceded polio and in other cases it followed polio. It shows nothing more than a random correlation.

I haven't seen any solid evidence that that chart shows nothing more than "random correlation". To me, it looks like a solid correlation between these pesticides and polio.
 
Back
Top