Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As you yourself admit, Firstenberg believes that the alleged flu virus is -activated- by EMFs. .

Firstenberg believes viruses exist.
You don't believe viruses exist. You can't use him as a source unless you accept his premise. He clearly contradicts your argument.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I imagine you're referring to the one incidence where Dr. Mark Bailey decided to not include an important first sentence while quoting an analysis in his 67 page document. No one's perfect. Furthermore, clipping the first sentence didn't actually help his argument. You, on the other hand, have clipped a lot of sentences that suggest very different things when not in their proper context. I think I understand why you would do it, as the way you clip these sentences seems to support your world view.

The ONE instances? ROFLMAO. Thanks for proving you can't tell fact from fiction.

 

[Scott]

Always snipping bits of sentences giving the wrong impression. The complete sentence was:
**
If it's true that viruses are created by the body in order to try to purge toxins form the body, then the new variants could be the body's attempts to purge other drugs and the covid 19 vaccines themselves from the body.
**

I created that thread at the end of August, 2021. While I'm not completely sure, I think I said that because of a certain site that argued that viruses were real but that they weren't contagious, this one to be precise:

https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/

Later on, I came to believe that it would be best to stick with the mainstream definition of viruses, which stipulates that they -are- contagious, which would make uncontagious viruses an oxymoron.

This is the definition of virus:
an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host.
"the hepatitis B virus"
Nothing in that definition that stipulates it is contagious.

Hepatitis B would actually fall under contagious diseases because of the way it's allegedly spread. I did a deep dive into the difference between infectious and contagious by reading a good part of the following article:
“Contagious” vs. “Infectious”: The Difference Can Be Important | dictionary.com


Apparently, the main difference is that while all allegedly contagious diseases are infectious, not all infectious diseases are contagious. The difference is apparently whether someone can be infected directly from someone who is already infected by the disease. Hepatitis B would allegedly qualify there:
**
The spread of hepatitis B virus in the western world occurs most often through sexual intercourse or needle sharing by intravenous drug users (IVDU). IVDU show the highest rate of HBV infection in Europe and North America.[73] There are also higher rates of hepatitis B infection among men who have sex with men (MSM).
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B_virus

If there needs to be a middleman, such as a mosquito in the case of malaria or a rusty nail in the case of tetanus, it's classified as infectious but not contagious. So perhaps there are some viruses that are infectious but not contagious. However, i think we can agree that all alleged viruses are infectious.

You can spend all the direct and indirect contact you want with a dog that has rabies. It won't infect you since rabies is not contagious.

Not if the dog bites you according to Wikipedia:
**
It is spread when an infected animal bites or scratches a human or other animals.[1]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If there needs to be a middleman, such as a mosquito in the case of malaria or a rusty nail in the case of tetanus, it's classified as infectious but not contagious. So perhaps there are some viruses that are infectious but not contagious. However, i think we can agree that all alleged viruses are infectious.

We can all agree that all viruses are infectious since they need a host to replicate.
However you had been arguing that all viruses were contagious. Are you now saying you were wrong on this?

All viruses are not contagious. Contagious is not part of the definition of a virus. Those are facts that we can agree on that you got wrong initially.

 

[Into the Night]

5G wasn't around back when polio was raging, but DDT and other very harmful pesticides certainly were. As they reduced DDT exposure and decreased the whopping amount of pesticides spewed into the environment, polio decreased as well.

DDT wasn't particularly harmful. Some places still use it to this day.
I get it. You want to point to the book 'Silent Spring', which was pure propaganda.

Polio is not caused by DDT.

The banning of DDT killed millions.

 

[Scott]

First of all, that's not actually what the paper said. Quoting what the mathematician's analysis actually said, bolding the parts you skipped over that I think are crucially important:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail. Alignment with the nucleotide database on 05/12/2021 showed a high match (98.85%) with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).
**

The point is that this remaining 5% of the sequences, comprising a total of 1,407,705 sequences, all belongs to a single contig, with the identification of k141_27232. It strongly suggests that this contig, far from being viral in nature, was actually -human- in nature. The mathematician even goes so far as to name the specific human component that it has such a high match with:
**
"Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020).

I didn't skip over anything.

You didn't quote the parts I bolded. That's what I meant. If you were on my side, you'd probably have called it "cherry picking", but I acknowledge that you may have just thought those parts weren't important.

You don't seem to understand the process at all. Bailey misrepresents it and you are completely ignorant.

Your form of debate could use some work. You might consider simply providing evidence for your claims rather than doing the schoolyard equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong".

The mathematician claims that a single contig out of the 28,459 contigs he assembled showed a similarity to a human RNA.

A "similarity"? We're talking about a 98.5% match with with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020), as I just quoted above. That is far more than a simple "similarity". And let's not forget that this isn't some small contig we're talking about either. Again, I think you haven't grasped just how important this contig is. The mathematician certainly made it quite clear. Quoting from him once more:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc


As to your point that it's only a single contig, there's another point that I think may be quite important. Again from the mathematician's analysis:
**
After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced.
**

Now, I can't be sure, but it -seems- like the mathematician is saying that a large proportion of the sequences were actually human, but simply labelled as unknown. To get an idea of how many, taking away 26 million from 56 million means that around 30 million sequences were filtered out. I recall that you yourself raised were concerned with filtering out so many of the sequences, but apparently you've lost interest now that you seem to be aware that it was the alleged discoverers of the Cov 2 virus that were the ones who first followed this protocol.

Each contig can use reads that were used in other contigs. All they are doing is assembling the reads in different ways.
That contig in question used only 5% of the total reads he had after he filtered out 55% of the reads so that particular contig used less than 2% of the reads. Because each contig can reuse reads used in other contigs, the number of reads in a specific contig is meaningless when it comes to finding the actual sequence of the virus. What is important is how many contigs result in similar or identical results. If a contig is completely different from all the other ones then that is an outlier and not likely to be the sequence of the virus.

The anonymous mathematician, who for some reason doesn't want to put his name to this groundbreaking science, had 1 contig out of 28,459 contigs that could considered similar to human RNA.
That would mean that .0035% of the contigs from the mathematician had a possible match to a human RNA sequence. No reasonable mathematician would accept this as statistically significant.

I suspect that you're mistaken here somewhere, but I admit that this bit of text is beyond me. I decided to ask over at Dr. Sam Bailey's substack about your statement above to see if someone there can help me out.

He did, but the irony here is that this mathematician was apparently following the -original- protocol used by those who allegedly discovered Cov 2 to begin with (aka "the authors") and like you, he finds this to be problematic. I think quoting the entire paragraph from which you got your quote is in order:

**
Renewed de novo assembly of published sequence data

To repeat the de novo assembly, we downloaded the original sequence data (SRR10971381) from 27/01/2020 on 11/30/2021 using the SRA tools [19] from the Internet. To prepare the paired-end reads for the actual assembly step with Megahit (v.1.2.9) [20], we used the FASTQ preprocessor fastp (v.0.23.1) [21]. After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced. For the elaborate contig generation from the remaining short sequence reads, we used Megahit (v.1.2.9) using the default setting.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

The mathematician then gets into what could not be reproduced:
**
We obtained 28,459 (200 nt - 29,802 nt) contigs, significantly less than described in [1]. Deviating from the representations in [1], the longest contig we assembled comprised only 29,802 nt, 672 nt less than the longest contig with 30,474 nt, which according to [1] comprised almost the entire viral genome. Our longest contig showed a perfect match with the MN908947.3 sequence at a length of 29,801 nt (Tables and Figures, Tables 1, 2). Thus, we could not reproduce the longest contig of 30,474 nt, which is so important for scientific verification. Consequently, the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.
**

The mathematician didn't follow the original protocol at all since the first thing he did was eliminate 55% of the reads.

As I previously stated, I believe it was the original discoverers of the alleged Cov 2 virus who first did this elimination, and the mathematician was just doing what they did. He even appeared to disagree with methodology.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You didn't quote the parts I bolded. That's what I meant. If you were on my side, you'd probably have called it "cherry picking", but I acknowledge that you may have just thought those parts weren't important.

Why would I quote your cherry picked parts. I already addressed it. It is 1 contig out of 28,459. It is statistically meaningless. It could match a marshmellow or the polio virus and it would still be statistically meaningless.

Your form of debate could use some work. You might consider simply providing evidence for your claims rather than doing the schoolyard equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong".

You mean when I post links to the genetic database and you respond with "I'm right and you're wrong?"
Accusing me of your tactics shows you are the one being disingenuous. Claiming that a theory that EMFs activate viruses is evidence that viruses exist is not you providing evidence. It is you providing bullshit.

A "similarity"? We're talking about a 98.5% match with with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020), as I just quoted above. That is far more than a simple "similarity". And let's not forget that this isn't some small contig we're talking about either. Again, I think you haven't grasped just how important this contig is. The mathematician certainly made it quite clear. Quoting from him once more:
**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail.

Sure if you completely ignore that it is .00035% of the contigs and each contig has an error that is calculated at 1% per nucleotide then you can make a big deal out of it. In reality where the rest of us live, something that has a .000343% chance of being correct is not hyped as being proof of anything.
**

As to your point that it's only a single contig, there's another point that I think may be quite important. Again from the mathematician's analysis:
**
After filtering the paired-end reads, 26,108,482 of the original total of 56,565,928 reads remained, with a length of about 150 bp. A large proportion of the sequences, presumably a majority of those of human origin were overwritten by the authors with "N" for unknown and therefore filtered out by fastp. This is to be regarded as problematic in the sense of scientificity, since not all steps can be retraced or reproduced.
**

Now, I can't be sure, but it -seems- like the mathematician is saying that a large proportion of the sequences were actually human, but simply labelled as unknown. To get an idea of how many, taking away 26 million from 56 million means that around 30 million sequences were filtered out. I recall that you yourself raised were concerned with filtering out so many of the sequences, but apparently you've lost interest now that you seem to be aware that it was the alleged discoverers of the Cov 2 virus that were the ones who first followed this protocol.

LOL. The mathematician is saying he has no clue as to why they were marked N. Because you decided they might be human doesn't make them so.
Why should I take an interest in you being a raving lunatic that doesn't understand evidence? Clearly you don't know what evidence is. Your article is written by someone that refused to put his name on the work he did. That isn't scientific evidence at all.

I suspect that you're mistaken here somewhere, but I admit that this bit of text is beyond me. I decided to ask over at Dr. Sam Bailey's substack about your statement above to see if someone there can help me out.

You suspect. That seems to be all you can do. You clearly don't have the intellect to understand anything as proved by what you post here.
By the way, if you can claim Firstenberg proves viruses don't exist, can I claim Baily proves they do exist? It would make as much sense as your argument using Firstenberg.

As I previously stated, I believe it was the original discoverers of the alleged Cov 2 virus who first did this elimination, and the mathematician was just doing what they did. He even appeared to disagree with methodology.

If he was doing what they did then why did he eliminate 55% of the reads that they used? Saying he did what they did is a complete lie. He did SOME of what they did and refused to do MUCH of what they did.
Where does the mathematician reveal his final de novo assembly for Covid-2 since you just claimed he did what they did. All he did was use half of their data and then cherry picked out statistical outliers from only using half their data to attack their results that used all the data. He didn't do the work they did at all.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

eat a fart cock.

Tinfoil hat!! Make it!!!! Wear it!!!!!!

You need to do it quick. That 5g is really affecting your ability to have rational thoughts.

 

[IBDaMann]

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here.

I read the paper, and I do not concur with your conclusions. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but you aren't going to convince any rational adults that the symptoms are just a freak coincidence, or that an epidemic of people with symptoms is not really a spreading contagion, but is instead just a terribly improbable coincidence.

 

[Scott]

What I picked were sources that I feel provide solid evidence for my beliefs in regards to biological viruses and vaccines.

I included my source every single time. Had you truly been paying attention, you would have noted that my source was a book, Virus Mania, to be precise. You want to see the original source, you'll have to buy the book. I bought the kindle version, as is clear from my references.

It seems you aren't actually trying to find the truth. Instead you are selectively using 3-4 sources that confirm your bias and refusing to look at anything else.

I'm using sources that I believe have the most pertinent information. If you have any evidence suggesting that my source material is innacurate, by all means present it.

I would have preferred to see a graph that included actual numbers of deaths instead of just the percentage of deaths from polio, but to say that the percentage of people who had polio who died from it is meaningless is false. The death or mortality rate of Covid 19 is certainly tracked extensively:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

So the fact that the death rate was going down long before polio vaccines is a very important point, suggesting that the vaccines had nothing to do with polio not having as severe an effect on people.



Not according to to the states that adopted compulsory polio vaccinations, as I pointed out in my last post. For those who missed it:

**
Listed below are public health statistics (U.S. Public Health Reports) from the four states which adopted compulsory vaccination, and the figures from Los Angeles, California (similar results in other states available from books listed at the back of this booklet):

TENNESSEE

1958: 119 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 386 cases of polio after compulsory shots

OHIO

1958: 17 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 52 cases of polio after compulsory shots

CONNECTICUT

1958: 45 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 123 cases of polio after compulsory shots

NORTH CAROLINA

1958: 78 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 313 cases of polio after compulsory shots


LOS ANGELES

1958: 89 cases of polio before shots

1959: 190 cases of polio after shots
**

Source:
Vaccines: The Biggest Medical Fraud in History (History of Vaccination Book 26) | Amazon.com



That chart actually makes the point of Virus Mania, namely that polio deaths peaked back in the 1910s or so.



DDT exposure was around its highest at that time as well, as I pointed out in Diagram 3. Let's see if I can get it a bit bigger this time:

**

A look at statistics shows that the polio epidemic in the United States of America reached its peak in 1952, and from then on rapidly declined. We have seen that this cannot be explained by the Salk-inoculation, since this was first introduced in 1955. There is a most striking parallel between polio development and the utilization of [pesticides.] historian Pete Daniel goes a step further in saying that “[the officials in charge] knew better, but the bureaucratic imperative to protect pesticides led the division into territory alien to honesty.”392
**

There's also a direct correlation between total pesticide production and polio incidences:
**
It would be years before the US government held a hearing on DDT and even longer until they finally prohibited it in 1972. Unfortunately, the government discussions were not widely reported, so the general public remained unaware of the connection between polio (in humans!) and pesticides, or other non-viral factors. To achieve this, in the beginning of the 1950’s, ten years before Carson’s Silent Spring, someone would have had to have written a bestseller which described the repercussions of DDT (and other toxins) in humans. Unfortunately, this was not the case; and even later on such a book has not appeared.

Diagram 4 Polio cases and pesticide production in the USA, 1940-1970

**

The source for both of these diagrams and the text:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (pp. 84-85). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

Don't you find it just a -tad- surprising the the places that had outbreaks were from the 4 states which adopted compulsory vaccination?

Death rates don't show anything about how contagious a disease is.

I was never trying to provide evidence that polio was contagious. You already know I don't believe it's contagious at all. I was providing evidence that the evidence that the polio vaccines helped in any way is lacking.

DDT was used more but was less prevalent? ROFLMAO. That has to be one of the stupidest arguments ever.

It's also a straw man argument. The graph shown in Virus Mania stated that post 1954, DDT production skyrocketed but DDT exposure decreased sharply. I imagine the reason was that people were catching on to just how toxic the stuff was and were wearing more protective gear.

Because polio deaths peaked in 1910 is meaningless. Medicine learned how to treat the disease to prevent deaths.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

The number of cases in the 1952 and 1953 were substantially more than in 1910.

Pesticide exposure was substantially more in the 1950s as well.

Epidemics and pandemics are not a straight line, the number infected goes up and down from year to year.

You have yet to show any solid evidence that polio is an infectious disease.

 

[Scott]

Where?

Enough platitudes -.-

Let's focus on whether they exist or not before going off on the alleged qualities of these hypothetical entities.

No, it means that this alleged rabies virus is allegedly transmitted through saliva, which is the way one can allegedly catch it.

You notice that your definition doesn't actually say that getting something via a bite means it's not contagious?

Let me ask you,
If I have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and then people becoming infected by being injected with the virus grown in that culture, would you accept the evidence or not?

That would be just one step. The steps outlined by the group of doctors, which is part of the statement referenced in the opening post, are as follows:

**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**

The statement continues:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.
(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)

If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.
**

Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

As you yourself admit, Firstenberg believes that the alleged flu virus is -activated- by EMFs.

Firstenberg believes viruses exist. You don't believe viruses exist. You can't use him as a source unless you accept his premise. He clearly contradicts your argument.

We've gone over this before. One can agree with some premises in a theory without having to agree to others. I agree with his premise that EMFs play a critical role in the flu. For those in the audience, I recommend going back to the post Saunders is responding to. He snips off a lot of relevant information.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm using sources that I believe have the most pertinent information. If you have any evidence suggesting that my source material is innacurate, by all means present it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/


At this point we have evidence that your source material is not only inaccurate but they are clearly spreading false information.

Until you can refute these to facts, any claim that a virus doesn't exist on your part is unadulterated bullshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

We've gone over this before. One can agree with some premises in a theory without having to agree to others. I agree with his premise that EMFs play a critical role in the flu. For those in the audience, I recommend going back to the post Saunders is responding to. He snips off a lot of relevant information.

Congratulations.
Since I can disagree with one part of their theory without having to agree with other parts then the Baileys have proven that viruses exist.

 

[Scott]

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine words.
Here this seems to about your level :
https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/contagious.html
Infectious diseases that spread from person to person are said to be contagious.
When you require biting to infect, then it is not contagious.

You notice that your definition doesn't actually say that getting something via a bite means it's not contagious?

LOL. So biting is now a form of contagion?

It's allegedly a form of infection. Since I don't believe the rabies virus exists, I don't believe people are infected by said alleged virus at all.

The definition is quite clear. It requires infection to occur through direct or indirect contact. Shaking hands is direct contact. Being in the same room is direct contact. Biting requires more than just direct contact.
From the CDC website -

https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/transmission/index.html

Rabies is not contagious. You can't get it from someone that has rabies.

I'd certainly agree with you there as I don't believe the virus exists at all, but your CDC article actually thinks it may be possible:

**
Bite and non-bite exposures from an infected person could theoretically transmit rabies, but no such cases have been documented.
**

Don't you find just a tad strange that there's no documented cases of it spreading from human to human? My father, who studied medicine but never finished it, once told me that infectious diseases have a lot easier time spreading in the same species than in different species, as different species have differences that can hinder their alleged spread. Yet with rabies, this basic rule doesn't seem to apply, and instead there is only documented cases of humans allegedly being infected by non human species.

Anyway, based on an article I read on the difference between infectious and contagious diseases, whether or not a person can be infected via bite is not the issue in determining whether a disease is contagious. The difference is in how easily a disease can spread according to health authorities. From the article I found:

**
Calling a disease contagious highlights the fact that it is very easily spread by being around people and public places—in our very normal life circumstances.
**

Source:
https://www.dictionary.com/e/contagious-vs-infectious-the-difference-can-be-important/

 

[Scott]

Always snipping bits of sentences giving the wrong impression.

I wonder why you don't apply this to Baily whom you keep quoting and yourself who you have also taking to quoting.

I imagine you're referring to the one incidence where Dr. Mark Bailey decided to not include an important first sentence while quoting an analysis in his 67 page document. No one's perfect. Furthermore, clipping the first sentence didn't actually help his argument. You, on the other hand, have clipped a lot of sentences that suggest very different things when not in their proper context. I think I understand why you would do it, as the way you clip these sentences seems to support your world view.

The ONE instances?

The one incidence.

 

[Scott]

If there needs to be a middleman, such as a mosquito in the case of malaria or a rusty nail in the case of tetanus, it's classified as infectious but not contagious. So perhaps there are some viruses that are infectious but not contagious. However, i think we can agree that all alleged viruses are infectious.

We can all agree that all viruses are infectious since they need a host to replicate.

All -alleged- viruses, yes.

However you had been arguing that all viruses were contagious. Are you now saying you were wrong on this?

Yes. The article I read on the difference between infectious and contagious diseases helped me understand the difference between the 2. In essence, health authorities will label a disease contagious rather than simply infectious if they believe (or at least claim to believe) that a disease is "very easily spread" or not.

 

[Scott]

5G wasn't around back when polio was raging, but DDT and other very harmful pesticides certainly were. As they reduced DDT exposure and decreased the whopping amount of pesticides spewed into the environment, polio decreased as well.

DDT wasn't particularly harmful.

Plenty of evidence suggests you are mistaken. From Wikipedia:

**
Chronic toxicity

Primarily through the tendency for DDT to build up in areas of the body with high lipid content, chronic exposure can affect reproductive capabilities and the embryo or fetus.[98]

A review article in The Lancet states: "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation".[42]

Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from indoor residual spraying).[99]

[snip]

Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions.[98]

Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[74][101]

Mothers with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism.[102][103]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Some places still use it to this day.

Indeed. This is probably why there is now so much more data as to its toxic effects then there was before. The evidence that "[m]others with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism", for instance, was produced in a study published 2018. It's here if you're interested in taking a look:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377859/

I get it. You want to point to the book 'Silent Spring', which was pure propaganda.

"Pure propaganda" according to who? In any case, the evidence I laid out wasn't taken from Silent Spring.

Polio is not caused by DDT.

Can you prove that?

The banning of DDT killed millions.

I imagine you believe in the arguments from Roger Bate. Again from the Wikipedia article on DDT:

**
Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Restrictions on DDT usage have been criticized by some organizations opposed to the environmental movement, including Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria and the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute; these sources oppose restrictions on DDT and attribute large numbers of deaths to such restrictions, sometimes in the millions.[142][143][144] These arguments were rejected as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios.[112] May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible".[112] More recently, Michael Palmer, a professor of chemistry at the University of Waterloo, has pointed out that DDT is still used to prevent malaria, that its declining use is primarily due to increases in manufacturing costs, and that in Africa, efforts to control malaria have been regional or local, not comprehensive.[145]

Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 United States ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Silent Spring, even though Carson never pushed for a DDT ban. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted".[147]

Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize these notions as "myths" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[148][149]
**

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Plenty of evidence suggests you are mistaken. From Wikipedia:

**
Chronic toxicity

Primarily through the tendency for DDT to build up in areas of the body with high lipid content, chronic exposure can affect reproductive capabilities and the embryo or fetus.[98]

A review article in The Lancet states: "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation".[42]

Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from indoor residual spraying).[99]

[snip]

Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions.[98]

Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[74][101]

Mothers with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism.[102][103]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT



Indeed. This is probably why there is now so much more data as to its toxic effects then there was before. The evidence that "[m]others with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism", for instance, was produced in a study published 2018. It's here if you're interested in taking a look:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377859/




"Pure propaganda" according to who? In any case, the evidence I laid out wasn't taken from Silent Spring.



Can you prove that?



I imagine you believe in the arguments from Roger Bate. Again from the Wikipedia article on DDT:

**
Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Restrictions on DDT usage have been criticized by some organizations opposed to the environmental movement, including Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria and the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute; these sources oppose restrictions on DDT and attribute large numbers of deaths to such restrictions, sometimes in the millions.[142][143][144] These arguments were rejected as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios.[112] May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible".[112] More recently, Michael Palmer, a professor of chemistry at the University of Waterloo, has pointed out that DDT is still used to prevent malaria, that its declining use is primarily due to increases in manufacturing costs, and that in Africa, efforts to control malaria have been regional or local, not comprehensive.[145]

Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 United States ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Silent Spring, even though Carson never pushed for a DDT ban. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted".[147]

Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize these notions as "myths" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[148][149]
**

Nothing in that showing that DDT causes polio. Just you throwing bullshit around hoping no one will notice the stench.

Meanwhile you are ignoring the elephant in the room that says Bailey is lying.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.


Since we now have evidence of a virus being grown in a culture and you can not refute it with any evidence, let's move on to the next step that proves that viruses grown in a culture can infect people after the virus is grown.
In 1955, Cutter grew the virus in culture and used it to make vaccine. They failed to adequately kill the virus and the virus grown in a culture was used to infect over 40,000 people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/


At this point we have evidence that your source material is not only inaccurate but they are clearly spreading false information.

Until you can refute these to facts, any claim that a virus doesn't exist on your part is unadulterated bullshit.

 

[Into the Night]

Plenty of evidence suggests you are mistaken. From Wikipedia:

**
Chronic toxicity

Primarily through the tendency for DDT to build up in areas of the body with high lipid content, chronic exposure can affect reproductive capabilities and the embryo or fetus.[98]

A review article in The Lancet states: "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation".[42]

Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from indoor residual spraying).[99]

[snip]

Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions.[98]

Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[74][101]

Mothers with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism.[102][103]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT



Indeed. This is probably why there is now so much more data as to its toxic effects then there was before. The evidence that "[m]others with high levels of DDT circulating in their blood during pregnancy were found to be more likely to give birth to children who would go on to develop autism", for instance, was produced in a study published 2018. It's here if you're interested in taking a look:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377859/




"Pure propaganda" according to who? In any case, the evidence I laid out wasn't taken from Silent Spring.



Can you prove that?



I imagine you believe in the arguments from Roger Bate. Again from the Wikipedia article on DDT:

**
Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Restrictions on DDT usage have been criticized by some organizations opposed to the environmental movement, including Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria and the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute; these sources oppose restrictions on DDT and attribute large numbers of deaths to such restrictions, sometimes in the millions.[142][143][144] These arguments were rejected as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios.[112] May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible".[112] More recently, Michael Palmer, a professor of chemistry at the University of Waterloo, has pointed out that DDT is still used to prevent malaria, that its declining use is primarily due to increases in manufacturing costs, and that in Africa, efforts to control malaria have been regional or local, not comprehensive.[145]

Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 United States ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Silent Spring, even though Carson never pushed for a DDT ban. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted".[147]

Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize these notions as "myths" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[148][149]
**

Straight out of the propaganda and even quotes from "Silent Spring", liar. Carson DID push for a DDT ban, dumbass.
No. DDT is not that harmful, and many have died because of the ban.