APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, I'm talking about the traditional definition that is used in regular dictionaries. Quoting one:
**
To identify or distinguish as a separate entity or group.
**
Source:

isolate — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

If you're talking about virology, name these 3 different methods.

Do you have dementia? You have been told these. You have been given links to scientific papers outlining the three methods.
cell culture, centrifuge, filtration.

Methods for the isolation of viruses from environmental samples - PubMed

Viruses are omnipresent and extraordinarily abundant in the microbial ecosystems of water, soil, and sediment. In nearly every reported case for aquatic and porous media environments (soils and sediments) viral abundance exceeds that of co-occurring host populations by 10-100-fold. If current...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Methods to Study Viruses - PMC

This chapter describes methods for growing, purifying, counting, and characterizing viruses. It also provides general principles of diagnostic virology. As obligate intracellular parasites, viruses require cell in which to replicate. The cells must ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As I've said before, virologists use a twisted definition of isolation that no one else uses. In their version, they never actually isolate the alleged viral particles. Instead, they have a soup of various particles and then jump to the conclusion that viral particles are there based on pseudoscientific methods. The above actually hints at their deception- they alleged that they "need to provide [viruses] with an opportunity to infect live mammalian cells". The allegation is that without including cells, biological viruses can't be isolated. Here's the problem- if you never isolate the viral particles, how are you sure that they are doing what you think they are doing? This ties in to what I've said before about CPE. Quoting a relevant portion of Mark Bailey's essay "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)":
**
The issue extends beyond just SARS-CoV-2 — every virus asserted to exist relies on similar pseudoscience.The history of virology reveals that the types of cells eventually selected for these experiments have been those that have a propensity to break down with the claim of virus-induced ‘cytopathic effects’ (CPEs), rather than those that are, “relatively easy to grow in the lab,” as Wiles claimed in her article. For example, Vero E6 monkey cells18 have long been favoured by virologists, supposedly due to their “suitability” to host many viruses, but suspiciously also, because the aneuploid19 kidney line is more susceptible to toxic insults from additional ingredients such as the ubiquitous nephrotoxic anttibiotics and antifungals added to the culture mix. When one group attempted to culture SARS-CoV-2, they had no desired result with human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a “viral isolate” following the observation of CPEs in Vero E6 cells.20 As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to “infect” the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species. And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.
**

Source:

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

I see you didn't even bother to read what I quoted. Instead, you just repost the same pseudoscience you rely on.

It is you and Dr Bailey that have the twisted definition of isolation. Dr Bailey's is clearly not describing the actual process used to isolate viruses which you would know if you actually looked at the scientific papers I have linked to.

Then there is this statement - The allegation is that without including cells, biological viruses can't be isolated. There is no allegation. It is the very nature of viruses. Cells are required to grow viruses. This is another example of Dr Bailey using pseudoscience. Bacteria can replicate in a growth medium without cells. Viruses require cells to replicate since it is the cell that is a viruses growth medium. You have already agreed that viruses are not bacteria so why are you posting pseudoscience that is asking that viruses act like bacteria?

Then Dr Bailey pretends that it is impossible to isolate viruses from other particles by ignoring the methods that are actually used.

So, your quote is filled with falsehoods, lies and ignorant statements that have nothing to do with the actual science around viruses.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I took a look at your article. I see that it quotes Siouxsie Wiles. Dr. Mark Bailey has quite a lot to say on Wiles in his "A Farewell to Virology ( Expert Edition)" essay. Quoting from it, starting on Page 6:
**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defense of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favored microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the Universityof Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that,“[it] has not done any work relating to the purification ofany Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that,“the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic... and helping to keepus safe.”8 In her November 2020 article,“Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in ahuman or anywhere else.


Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard toSARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate[sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfill these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definition of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with NaZhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include... animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15

—However, whether different virologists want to entertain the validity of Koch’s Postulates or not, it is simply another distraction as the postulates require the physical isolation of a microbe rather than assertions that one exists through means such as computer simulations, imaging vesicles of unknown biological function, or claiming that unpurified biological soups given to animals contain “viruses”.


Wiles also decided to champion virology’s blatant misuse of the word‘isolation’ when she stated,“as for using isolation in the every-day sense of the word, rather than the definition that is relevant to the question being asked? Well, that’s just bloody ridiculous and a clear sign these requests for evidence are not being made in good faith.”16 She appeared to be incredulous that others had pointed out that the definition of a word being used scientifically was unilaterally changed by the virologists to imply a certain proof was obtained. However, if their use of isolation does not mean what most people think it means, then it is likely that most of the public are being misinformed. On this account, Wiles is an active participant in promulgating disinformation, whether it is an act of willful blindness or otherwise. Wiles needs to show her hand as an expert and explain to the public what the definition of isolation in virology means, in particular with regard to demonstrating the putative existence of viruses. Perhaps she thinks she did explain when she wrote, “when virologists want to isolate avirus from a sample they’ll take the sample or some part of it and add it to some cells – usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab – and then look to see if the cells die and/or ifthere are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.”17 It is unclear if Wiles is implying that the “virus isolate” is established by: (a) the taking of the sample, (b) seeing some cells die in vitro, (c) the release of claimed “virus particles” in the tissue culture,or (d) all or some combination of these elements. However, nothing she described requires the existence of viruses — it is a game of deception, whether realized or not. It simply involves the assertion that a virus was in the sample, blaming the breakdown of experimentally stressed cells in the test tube on the imagined virus, and then declaring that some of the vesicles (whose biological composition and function were not established) were the viruses.There is a further fatal flaw in this exercise. As this essay will detail,the claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to exist through this methodology are all scientifically invalid as none of the experiments were performed with valid controls.


This is exemplary of how Wiles has acted in her role as one of the key influencers for the New Zealand government’s disinformation campaign and its murderous rollout program of an injectable product called Comirnaty (TM) – claiming that non-specific tissue culture experiments verify the existence of the virus when nothing of the kind has been demonstrated. The issue extends beyond just SARS-CoV-2— every virus asserted to exist relies on similar pseudoscience. The history of virology reveals that the types of cells eventually selected for these experiments have been those that have a propensity to breakdown with the claim of virus-induced ‘cytopathic effects’ (CPEs), rather than those that are, “relatively easy to grow in the lab,” as Wiles claimed in her article. For example, Vero E6 monkey cells18 have long been favored by virologists, supposedly due to their “suitability” to host many viruses, but suspiciously also, because the aneuploid19 kidney line is more susceptible to toxic insults from additional ingredients such as the ubiquitous nephrotoxic antibiotics and anti fungals added to the culture mix. When one group attempted to culture SARS-CoV-2, they had no desired result with human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a “viral isolate” following the observation of CPEs in Vero E6cells.20 As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to “infect” the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species. And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.
**

Source:

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

I am curious why you didn't address anything in the quote that I posted from my link but only went to the link and found Wiles name so you could repost the same thing you always post. You don't address that viruses have been isolated in multiple science papers. You don't address any of the actual papers that sequenced the genome and you don't address any of the pictures of isolated viruses. It seems you cant' actually address anything I present to you.


And there it is in your quote. Dr Bailey proves this statement by Wiles is correct when it comes to all Dr Bailey's arguments about viruses not existing.
-
“the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.

Your quote starts with this -
”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses
Are all viruses pathogenic? The correct answer is they are not. So, Dr Bailey is using specific wording, innuendo, and false logic to imply that no viruses have ever been isolated by using careful wording while not admitting that viruses have been isolated by gradient centrifugation.


Then your post also supports the statement by Wiles that Dr Bailey is using outdated science to argue against. Certain viruses only attack certain types of cells. Science says if you want to replicate bacteria you have to use the type of agar that the bacteria replicates in. With a virus you have to use the type of cell that the virus will replicate in. The use of that type of cell is science. Claiming that the use of specific cells is wrong is pseudoscience. Dr Bailey is using pseudoscience.

 

[ZenMode]

I strongly disagree with you there.



How can you be so obtuse? What I believe is the reason this debate started here to begin with. As to my mother's beliefs on health, they certainly played a role in my own beliefs.



The important thing is -why- lifespans have increased.



A lot of things changed. Incidentally, life expectancy in the U.S. has been falling recently:

Dying Young — Falling Life Expectancy in the U.S.

Life expectancy in the U.S. has fallen for several years in a row, representing the “longest sustained decline in expected lifespan since the tumultuous period of 1915 to 1918.” Comparing unfavorably to their counterparts in other high-income nations, Americans lead lives that are both shorter...

childrenshealthdefense.org

A lot has changed as far as technology goes, but the increase in life expectancy is due to medical advancements due to science.

It's not a coincidence that measles cases have all but vanished around the world since the measles vaccine was developed.

Well... for most reasonable people, it's not a coincidence. There's a clear cause/effect.

 

[Scott]

As I've said before, I've never believed the earth is flat and I don't think you do either, so I think we can rule that one out.

I just made a thread that delves into certain Covid vaccines, specifically the mRNA ones. It can be seen here:

Thread 'Inside mRNA Vaccines: The Movie'

Aug 12, 2025

Just finished watching the film that shares the title of this thread. As some here know, I no longer believe in biological viruses, so I don't agree with that part of the documentary, but the focus is on the mRNA vaccines, and I thought that part was quite well done, including some video testimonials of some who have shown clear signs of being injured from these vaccines. Anyway, the film can be seen free of charge here:

Inside mRNA Vaccines: The Movie

This hard-hitting film rips the lid off the disastrous mRNA rollout — with stunning 3D animation and unfiltered testimony from the world’s leading experts.

www.thefocalpoints.com

Constructive feedback welcome.

• Scott
• covid 19 covid 19 vaccine program covid 19 vaccines erki tangsoo fauci mrna vaccines operation warp speed
• Replies: 60
• Forum: General Politics Forum

So far, no mention of microchips in it, but you're welcome to bring them up if that's your cup of tea.

Why would You watch a movie about vaccines when vaccines are meant to inoculate someone against viruses,, when viruses don't exist?

For starters, not all vaccines are meant to protect against alleged biological viruses. There are quite a few vaccines that are meant to protect against bacterial infections as well:

List of Bacterial vaccines - Drugs.com

Compare bacterial vaccines. View important safety information, ratings, user reviews, popularity and more.

www.drugs.com

Now, while I certainly -believe- that bacteria are real, that doesn't necessarily mean I believe they are the primary causes of the diseases they are blamed for.

But for me, the most important part is not whether or not they actually protect people from infections, but rather whether they are harmful in and of themselves. I believe that there is solid evidence that they are in fact quite harmful. I believe the documentary on mRNA vaccines that was the basis for the thread I linked to previously provides copious evidence of this. For those in the audience who may have missed the link to said thread, it is here:

Thread 'Inside mRNA Vaccines: The Movie'

Aug 12, 2025

Just finished watching the film that shares the title of this thread. As some here know, I no longer believe in biological viruses, so I don't agree with that part of the documentary, but the focus is on the mRNA vaccines, and I thought that part was quite well done, including some video testimonials of some who have shown clear signs of being injured from these vaccines. Anyway, the film can be seen free of charge here:

Inside mRNA Vaccines: The Movie

This hard-hitting film rips the lid off the disastrous mRNA rollout — with stunning 3D animation and unfiltered testimony from the world’s leading experts.

www.thefocalpoints.com

Constructive feedback welcome.

• Scott
• covid 19 covid 19 vaccine program covid 19 vaccines erki tangsoo fauci mrna vaccines operation warp speed
• Replies: 60
• Forum: General Politics Forum

 

[ZenMode]

The PDF you linked is pretty much just regurgitating what Mike Stone says and is just an attempt at creating doubt. It's a common move by conspiracy theorists.

The PDF mentions Sars Cov-2 which, according to you doesn't exist.

I've said a few times that carrying on the lie of virus existence, as has been the case for decades, would require a grand, worldwide conspiracy among thousands of people. You say no.

In regard to COVID, I'd like to know how a grand conspiracy didn't exist.

Over a weekend, multiple independent and generally competing, companies, around the world, all did their own independent analysis of the Covid virus and developed a COVID vaccine. They all performed clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people to test the effectiveness of the vaccine and all had data on the results. Multiple independent, and often competing, companies developed and tested products to test individuals for Covid. Case and mortality data was collected from hundreds of thousands of medical entities and reported around the world. Governments around the world tracked that data and made decisions on restrictions/lockdowns.

So, explain how all of the independent medical and government entities made this happen just by chance, with no coordination.

For example, how did the people conducting the clinical trials and collecting data all just happen to get on the same page? They all had to fake data, but all did it on their own initiative ?

@Scott