Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

The only logical fallacy here is your straw man argument. I never stated that "facts rely on being a doctor".

So this has nothing to do with being a doctor?

So you say. First question- are you even a doctor? Because there are several doctors who no longer believe viruses exist and if the issue was as basic as you suggest, I seriously doubt they would still no longer believe viruses exist.

Not only did you use the word doctor twice, you then gave no facts other than them being doctors for why they no longer believe.

Apparently you've forgotten that the doctors I'm referring to signed off on a statement providing a method for those who believe in biological viruses to try to prove they exist. I mentioned this in the opening post.

Being a doctor has no bearing on the facts and yet you imply rather strongly that as doctors they are better able to assess "facts."

I definitely think the doctors mentioned in the opening post of this thread know more than you on the subject of biological viruses. It may be that regular doctors don't know much about them, but these doctors took the time to consider whether biological viruses exist. At least one of them worked on a book on them called Virus Mania.

Yet another straw man argument. I never said that just because someone believes something means that it's true. That being said, if several doctors are skeptical or outright no longer believe that biological viruses exist, I'd think why they believe this is worth examining deeply, rather than simply subjecting their explanations to ad hominem attacks.

Keep building on that logical fallacy. My argument is not a strawman.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Because a doctor believes something is not evidence that their beliefs should be examined

It's not just "something" that they believe, it concerns human health. A lot of people trust doctors to know about such things. I don't trust most doctors when it comes to this, but I certainly commend these doctors as they have gone above and beyond the mainstream to question what has become a fundamental tenent of the current allopathic dogma.

 

[Scott]

When you keep shoveling shit, there is no reason to call it anything but shit.

There you go again. There was a time when you were capable of engaging in a productive discussion on this subject. It seems that time has passed.

And you can't respond with anything related to the topic?

I tend to stop responding when someone starts up with base insults. As I've told you before, if you want to engage in such things, best to do it at the end of your post, rather than the start. Perhaps unconsciously you are tired of this discussion. This would explain why you seem to have started putting your insults at or near the start of your posts again.

Hmmmm... I spent over a paragraph explaining why your shit [snip]

There you go again.

 

[Scott]

Where is your evidence that the Covid-2 virus hasn't been detected?

As the dominant paradigm, I believe it should be up to those who believe that biological viruses exist to provide compelling evidence that this is so, not the other way around.

I have evidence of it being sequenced over 6,000,000 times.

No, you have evidence of people claiming to sequence viruses. It's not the same thing as providing compelling evidence that this is actually the case. Part of the issue is the very definition of sequencing in this case. As mentioned previously, the doctors I reference in the opening post have provided a method wherein the medical establishment could try to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist. As far as I know, no one has taken them up on their offer.

At this point you are claiming that all of those that have sequenced the virus are frauds.

No. I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur. After that, a lot of those in the medical field simply believed what he had to say. Some if not all of the doctors involved in the statement from the opening post actually believed in biological viruses at first as well, as did I. It was only after they started examining the evidence of biological viruses that they found this evidence severely wanting.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

should a.i. be able to vote?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Apparently you've forgotten that the doctors I'm referring to signed off on a statement providing a method for those who believe in biological viruses to try to prove they exist. I mentioned this in the opening post.

Signing off on a method that isn't applicable only proves how stupid they are. Humans, cats, dogs, fish and every other vertebrate has never been isolated using the Koch postulates. Worms, jellyfish, and every other non-vertebrate multicellular organism has never been isolated using the Koch method. Requiring the Koch method before believing something exists only proves how stupid they are. It isn't a valid test for whether an organism exists or not. It is only a valid test for those organisms that can be found using the test.

I definitely think the doctors mentioned in the opening post of this thread know more than you on the subject of biological viruses. It may be that regular doctors don't know much about them, but these doctors took the time to consider whether biological viruses exist. At least one of them worked on a book on them called Virus Mania.

Being a doctor doesn't make anyone smart about a subject. Looking at the facts makes one informed about the subject. Do humans exist since no human has ever been isolated using the Koch method? This is a simple question of logic.
Either organisms can exist that can't be isolated by Koch's postulates or they can't. If they can, then requiring the Koch method before believing something exists is nonsensical.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Keep on loving your straw.

It's not just "something" that they believe, it concerns human health. A lot of people trust doctors to know about such things. I don't trust most doctors when it comes to this, but I certainly commend these doctors as they have gone above and beyond the mainstream to question what has become a fundamental tenent of the current allopathic dogma.

They have not gone above and beyond. They have gone far below the tenets of science. They have only provided denial and not any actual science to fit the known facts.
When did they address the fact that viruses have been sequenced millions of times by hundreds of labs. They have presented no evidence of those labs being wrong. If viruses didn't exist then it would be easy to show where the RNA is coming from. Why is the RNA of viruses result in matching 3 of Koch's postulates but they can present no other explanation?
Why do your doctors rely on science from over 100 years ago and ignore all advances since then? When Koch formed his postulates DNA was not known. When Koch formed his postulates, electron microscopes didn't exist. Would Koch rely on his postulates instead of scientific advances? I doubt it. Koch would call those doctors idiots.

 

[Concart]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/

There are 219 virus species that are known to be able to infect humans. The first of these to be discovered was yellow fever virus in 1901, and three to four new species are still being found every year. Extrapolation of the discovery curve suggests that there is still a substantial pool of undiscovered human virus species, although an apparent slow-down in the rate of discovery of species from different families may indicate bounds to the potential range of diversity.

 

[Concart]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02180-2/fulltext

Revealing the origins of SARS-CoV-2 is a prerequisite for cutting off the virus from the root and preventing future spillover of the virus. This work is of great significance in infection disease prevention and control in the face of Disease X.1 Although scientists around the world are searching very hard, the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain elusive. In fact, for many infectious pathogens, although their origins have been traced back decades, the debate around the origins remains alive.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As the dominant paradigm, I believe it should be up to those who believe that biological viruses exist to provide compelling evidence that this is so, not the other way around.



No, you have evidence of people claiming to sequence viruses. It's not the same thing as providing compelling evidence that this is actually the case. Part of the issue is the very definition of sequencing in this case. As mentioned previously, the doctors I reference in the opening post have provided a method wherein the medical establishment could try to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist. As far as I know, no one has taken them up on their offer.



No. I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur. After that, a lot of those in the medical field simply believed what he had to say. Some if not all of the doctors involved in the statement from the opening post actually believed in biological viruses at first as well, as did I. It was only after they started examining the evidence of biological viruses that they found this evidence severely wanting.

Your denials are so sweet I'll bet butter doesn't melt in your mouth.

You have presented no evidence of fraud by anyone claiming to sequence the viruses. In fact, they would have an incentive to not commit such fraud since to reveal the fraud would make them scientific giants. The doctors have made up a method that won't work and then demanded that it be made to work. It is ridiculousness on their part. Why would science rely on 120 year old science from a time period when DNA and electron microscopes weren't known? It would be like saying cars can't work as transportation because they don't eat hay like horses. It is idiocy.

If you believe Pasteur is a fraud then you should also believe Koch is a fraud since Koch built on Pasteur's work.. That raises the question of why you are relying on the work of someone you think is a fraud to show that viruses don't exist. You are so far down the rabbit hole you can't see that you are now arguing against yourself.

I hardly think they found the evidence wanting. Instead they found that they could satisfy their own wanting of money by selling shit to idiots.

 

[Concart]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02180-2/fulltext

The curiosity-driven discovery of giant DNA viruses infecting amoebas has triggered an intense debate about the origin, nature, and definition of viruses. This discovery was delayed by the current paradigm confusing viruses with small virions. Several new definitions and concepts have been proposed either to reconcile the unique features of giant viruses with previous paradigms or to propose a completely new vision of the living world. I briefly review here how several other lines of research in virology converged during the last 2 decades with the discovery of giant viruses to change our traditional perception of the viral world. This story emphasizes the power of multidisciplinary curiosity-driven research, from the hospital to the field and the laboratory. Notably, some philosophers have now also joined biologists in their quest to make sense of the abundance and diversity of viruses and related capsidless mobile elements in the biosphere.

 

[Concart]

I can do this all day, but the debate is settled. It has been settled for decades. One moronic poster claiming viruses don't exist is overwhelmed by scientists publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals. Let's see, who should I believe, decades of scientific research and every virologist on the planet, or some dumb fucking poster on an internet chat board.

Please. How stupid is this thread? There has never been a dumber thread on JPP. Ever.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As the dominant paradigm, I believe it should be up to those who believe that biological viruses exist to provide compelling evidence that this is so, not the other way around.

That isn't the way science works.
Copernicus didn't demand that scientists prove their method was right. He proved they were wrong by proving his was right.
When the scientific consensus thinks something, it is up to the person claiming that they are wrong prove they are wrong by showing their theory better fits the facts.
The opinion of Dr Bailey and others doesn't better fit the facts. Their opinion ignores many of the facts. They don't explain how the disease is transmitted if viruses don't exist.
That is an extremely large hole in their claims. A hole you seem willing to completely ignore. It can't be poison because poison loses potency as it spreads. So what is it that causes the disease? Your arguments so far have not addressed this major problem.

No, you have evidence of people claiming to sequence viruses. It's not the same thing as providing compelling evidence that this is actually the case. Part of the issue is the very definition of sequencing in this case. As mentioned previously, the doctors I reference in the opening post have provided a method wherein the medical establishment could try to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist. As far as I know, no one has taken them up on their offer.

I have hundreds of scientific papers published in scientific journals and the procedures in those papers have been duplicated thousands of times with no one attempting to duplicate them claiming they can't be duplicated.
That is the way science works. It can be duplicated by others. Care to tell us who has attempted to sequence a virus and never been able to do it because the process doesn't work?
It is the exact same process used to sequence DNA. The DNA is cut into snippets, it is then amplified and thousands of snippets are read and then reassembled by a computer to give the DNA result for a paternity test. Unless you are arguing that your one author is wrong about paternity tests being valid, you have no argument that RNA of viruses hasn't been sequenced. (Your author doesn't seem to know how DNA is sequenced. They don't pull one strand out of one cell and only read that one strand.)

No. I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur. After that, a lot of those in the medical field simply believed what he had to say. Some if not all of the doctors involved in the statement from the opening post actually believed in biological viruses at first as well, as did I. It was only after they started examining the evidence of biological viruses that they found this evidence severely wanting.

Koch's work built on Pasteur. You can't claim Pasteur is a fraud and then argue that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated using Koch's postulates.

 

[Scott]

Apparently you've forgotten that the doctors I'm referring to signed off on a statement providing a method for those who believe in biological viruses to try to prove they exist. I mentioned this in the opening post.

Signing off on a method that isn't applicable only proves how stupid they are

An unsubstantiated assertion (that the method the doctors use isn't applicable), followed by an ad hominem attack. With an opening sentence like that, I think I'll skip the rest.

 

[Scott]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/

**
There are 219 virus species that are known to be able to infect humans. The first of these to be discovered was yellow fever virus in 1901, and three to four new species are still being found every year. Extrapolation of the discovery curve suggests that there is still a substantial pool of undiscovered human virus species, although an apparent slow-down in the rate of discovery of species from different families may indicate bounds to the potential range of diversity.
**

Are you familiar with the tale of the Emperor's new clothes? Just in case you or someone else in the audience isn't familiar with it, I'll quote from Wikipedia:

**
Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool.

Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.
**

Source:
The Emperor's New Clothes | Wikipedia

What we have with viruses is the equivalent, with "master" spinsters cooking up new viruses all the time. The fact of the matter, however, is that no virus has ever objectively been shown to exist. Dr. Sam Bailey wrote a good article on the subject here:

What is a Virus? | drsambailey.com

For those who prefer videos, she's done one on the subject here:

 

[Scott]

As the dominant paradigm, I believe it should be up to those who believe that biological viruses exist to provide compelling evidence that this is so, not the other way around.

No, you have evidence of people claiming to sequence viruses. It's not the same thing as providing compelling evidence that this is actually the case. Part of the issue is the very definition of sequencing in this case. As mentioned previously, the doctors I reference in the opening post have provided a method wherein the medical establishment could try to prove that biological viruses do in fact exist. As far as I know, no one has taken them up on their offer.

No. I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur. After that, a lot of those in the medical field simply believed what he had to say. Some if not all of the doctors involved in the statement from the opening post actually believed in biological viruses at first as well, as did I. It was only after they started examining the evidence of biological viruses that they found this evidence severely wanting.

You have presented no evidence of fraud by anyone claiming to sequence the viruses.

Strawman, I never claimed I'd presented such evidence. I said "I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur"

Perhaps I should have limited myself to Louis Pasteur himself. A good article on his fraudulent activities:

Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

An unsubstantiated assertion (that the method the doctors use isn't applicable), followed by an ad hominem attack. With an opening sentence like that, I think I'll skip the rest.

It would appear you have no defense for what they said.
This is an example of how conspiracy nutcases work. You make a claim and then can't support it so resort to red herrings.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Strawman, I never claimed I'd presented such evidence. I said "I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur"

Perhaps I should have limited myself to Louis Pasteur himself. A good article on his fraudulent activities:

Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

I see you have decided to use Into The Night's tactics of simply declaring logical fallacies while never defending your statements.

You have presented no evidence of fraud by the thousands that have sequences millions of viruses. The fact that you have accused them of fraud but now admit you will not be presenting any evidence of their fraud points to your argument being the one that is void of any actual evidence.

If germ theory is a fraud then Koch's postulates must also be a fraud since they rely on germ theory. If Koch's postulates are a fraud then requiring a fraud be used to prove the existence of viruses would appear to be illogical beyond belief.

Let's put this in perspective. You are arguing that germ theory is a fraud while at the same time one of the basic tenets of germ theory must be used before you will believe viruses exist. You have no other argument at this point. You have shown the only fraud is you.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Are you familiar with the tale of the Emperor's new clothes? Just in case you or someone else in the audience isn't familiar with it, I'll quote from Wikipedia:

**
Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool.

Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.
**

Source:
The Emperor's New Clothes | Wikipedia

What we have with viruses is the equivalent, with "master" spinsters cooking up new viruses all the time. The fact of the matter, however, is that no virus has ever objectively been shown to exist. Dr. Sam Bailey wrote a good article on the subject here:

What is a Virus? | drsambailey.com

For those who prefer videos, she's done one on the subject here:

You certainly have no clothes at this point.
You have no evidence of fraud by the thousands that have sequenced millions of viruses.
You accept the process of DNA sequencing but deny the process of RNA sequencing when they are the exact same process.
You have argued that germ theory is a fraud while also arguing that viruses are a fraud because they can't meet the process used in germ theory.

Not only are you naked. At this point you are running around trying to make sure everyone can see how naked you are.

 

[Scott]

Signing off on a method that isn't applicable only proves how stupid they are.

An unsubstantiated assertion (that the method the doctors use isn't applicable), followed by an ad hominem attack. With an opening sentence like that, I think I'll skip the rest.

It would appear you have no defense for what they said.

Good deflection, but I see through it. If you can't provide evidence that their method isn't valid, this conversation ends here.

 

[Scott]

Strawman, I never claimed I'd presented such evidence. I said "I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur"

Perhaps I should have limited myself to Louis Pasteur himself. A good article on his fraudulent activities:

Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

I see you have decided to use Into The Night's tactics of simply declaring logical fallacies while never defending your statements.

I disagree, I believe the above statement I made was a great defense of the statement I quoted. I also note that you didn't even try to defend Louis Pasteur. Do you agree that he was a fraud?

 

[Scott]

Are you familiar with the tale of the Emperor's new clothes? Just in case you or someone else in the audience isn't familiar with it, I'll quote from Wikipedia:

**
Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool.

Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.
**

Source:
The Emperor's New Clothes | Wikipedia

What we have with viruses is the equivalent, with "master" spinsters cooking up new viruses all the time. The fact of the matter, however, is that no virus has ever objectively been shown to exist. Dr. Sam Bailey wrote a good article on the subject here:

What is a Virus? | drsambailey.com

For those who prefer videos, she's done one on the subject here:

You certainly have no clothes at this point.
You have no evidence of fraud by the thousands that have sequenced millions of viruses.

I never claimed to have such evidence. Fraud implies that those doing the sequencing know that what they are claiming isn't true. I've never made that claim. But just because many people believe something is true doesn't make it so. Some of the originals in the germ theory vs. terrain theory were definitely frauds, however. Do you agree that Lous Pasteur was a fraud?