Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

You're getting sidetracked. You had claimed that I was using some rather twisted logic. I said you hadn't shown any evidence that I'd used this twisted logic, and your response was that it was already "proven". I suppose that's -one- way to make an argument. Just say that your belief is already proven and call it a day .

that's why totalitarianism is attractive to stupid people.

They get to feel right all the time with no effort.

I agree with the general sentiment, although I'd substitute something like "low information voters" for "stupid people".

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I agree with the general sentiment, although I'd substitute something like "low information voters" for "stupid people".

I wouldn't.

 

[Scott]

There's something to say about stick-to it iveness.

not when one is sticking to stupidity.

From a general principle standpoint, that certainly sounds good. However, if applied to someone like Saunders, I'd have reservations. It may well be that if it hadn't been for him not just doggedly sticking to his guns but posting why he disagrees with me that this thread might have died a long time ago.

This reminds me of a line from David Ray Griffin, who provided a lot of evidence that the events on September 11, 2001 were not as the official narrative would have it. He voiced this in the documentary Zeitgeist:

**
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false. In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for people. The focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on it's function. A story cannot function unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation. It is not a matter of debate that some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story. The keepers of the faith won't enter into debate with them. They ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.
**

Source:
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-transcript

It then segues into a line from Tucker Carlson, which I find ironic given that he's recently been given to quite a lot skepticism as to what the mainstream media says:

**
"It is wrong, blasphemous, and sinful for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that the US government killed 3000 of its own citizens."
**

All of this is to say that while it can at times be irritating for someone like Saunders to doggedly copy mainstream talking points on viruses, his continually doing so has perhaps provided more of a window for others to take a look at the differing points of view, which may well not have happened if he'd just said a few words and then stopped responding in this thread, perhaps denouncing it as blasphemous or some synonimous statement.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

exosomes exist too.

you guys keep going down the same dead end.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

From a general principle standpoint, that certainly sounds good. However, if applied to someone like Saunders, I'd have reservations. It may well be that if it hadn't been for him not just doggedly sticking to his guns but posting why he disagrees with me that this thread might have died a long time ago.

This reminds me of a line from David Ray Griffin, who provided a lot of evidence that the events on September 11, 2001 were not as the official narrative would have it. He voiced this in the documentary Zeitgeist:

**
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false. In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for people. The focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on it's function. A story cannot function unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation. It is not a matter of debate that some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story. The keepers of the faith won't enter into debate with them. They ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.
**

Source:
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-transcript

It then segues into a line from Tucker Carlson, which I find ironic given that he's recently been given to quite a lot skepticism as to what the mainstream media says:

**
"It is wrong, blasphemous, and sinful for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that the US government killed 3000 of its own citizens."
**

All of this is to say that while it can at times be irritating for someone like Saunders to doggedly copy mainstream talking points on viruses, his continually doing so has perhaps provided more of a window for others to take a look at the differing points of view, which may well not have happened if he'd just said a few words and then stopped responding in this thread, perhaps denouncing it as blasphemous or some synonimous statement.

aren;t you reallly trying to talk about this specific current virus and the exosome theory on this specific virus, the covid?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

this whole thread was a psyop to "dirty the well" about exosomes and virus discussions.

for example, one can believe viruses exist, but THAT THE COVID VIRUS IN PARTICULAR IS FAKE NEWS.

these two are trying negate that as a position in this discussion.

 

[Scott]

Nice deflection. Do you have any other deflections you want to make? His claim is only one.

Apparently, you've forgotten what claims were being referred to. The claims we were talking about are the claims made by virologists. I'll quote the snippet from the opening post to get this conversation back on track:

[snipped by Saunders]

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

I am very familiar by now with the pseudo-science you keep using.

Now -that- right there is a deflection. We had been talking about claims made by -virologists-, but you apparently got confused and started thinking we were talking about a claim made by some doctor who disagrees with them.

Humans have never been isolated.

According to who?

 

[Scott]

I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

We know what you believe.

There you go again with your "We". For the most part, it's just you and me in this conversation for some time now.

I guess that is an admission that your position is not well founded since you think no one can understand it other than me.

I'm simply noting that for the most part, this is just a conversation between you and me. I don't think it's hard to understand my position. What's hard is to understand how I got there. It requires a lot of reading of fairly technical information that I imagine most people don't think is worth their time. To be fair, I tend to have a fair amount of time to do these types of things and I understand that many people don't.

I believe that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

We know what you believe. We also know that you have no evidence for your belief and no evidence disputing the existence of viruses.

Prove it then.

ROFLMAO. Really? You are going to play that game?

You made 2 claims:

1- That I have no evidence for my belief that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

2- That I have no evidence disputing the existence of viruses.

I'm simply asking you to prove your claims. I'm pretty sure you won't even try, but I think it's good to point out the fact that you tend to make a lot of claims that you can't actually prove.

 

[Scott]

Because some idiots refuse to believe something doesn't mean they have to prove something that has been proven billions of times.

Saunders, when are you going to learn that attacking people who disagree with you with ad hominems doesn't actually bolster your case?

Maybe you need to learn what an ad hominem is before you use the term.

I know what it means, but it looks like you don't. I can attempt to educate you though:

**
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

You might want to look up the word "rather."

You seem to believe that I don't understand the meaning of the word. Can you explain why?

I also note that you haven't even attempted to prove that calling or implying that someone is an idiot isn't an ad hominem attack.

 

[Scott]

What are your questions?

As to their explanation for the causes of disease, I think it's safe to say that they are of the terrain theory rather than germ theory. If you'd like to learn more on the terrain theory branch that I believe these doctors believe in, feel free to take a look at the following article:
The Terrain Theory vs. The Germ Theory | drrobertyoung.com

Have microzymas ever been isolated? Have microzymas ever been grown in culture?
How can microzymas exist if neither of those have ever been done?

Look! I just proved your terrain theory is not true.

I may have once read about "microzymas", but it certainly wasn't a term I remembered. Anyway, I looked up the term and I came up with the following article on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zymotic_disease

It's a term that was apparently coined by Antoine Bechamp, who may well be the founder of Terrain theory, but I think it's important to note that he's a man who died over a century ago. Terrain theory has evolved since then. The linked article I pointed you to doesn't mention microzymas at all.

 

[Scott]

LOL. So you think humans have to be grown in culture before they exist?

No, I've told you numerous times that I don't believe that.

Since humans can exist without being grown in culture [snip]

Yes, they can. Tell me, are you aware that only microbes can be "grown in culture"? Why do you suppose that is? For that matter, what does "grown in culture" mean to you?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Now -that- right there is a deflection. We had been talking about claims made by -virologists-, but you apparently got confused and started thinking we were talking about a claim made by some doctor who disagrees with them.



According to who?

What specific claim made by a virologist do you think we were talking about? The only thing you keep bringing up is the doctors Bailey and their denials of evidence. Your quote is specifically from Dr Bailey and unless Dr Bailey is suddenly a virologist you are not presenting claims made by a virologist.

Provide your evidence of a human being isolated from the bacteria found in their stomach and intestine. No person has ever been isolated from that biome because they need it to survive.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. That being said, correlation -can- be evidence of causation. Wikipedia gets into the details:

**
Causal analysis is the field of experimental design and statistics pertaining to establishing cause and effect.[4][5] For any two correlated events, A and B, there are four possible relationships:

A causes B (direct causation);
B causes A (reverse causation);
A and B are both caused by C (common causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.
These relationships are not mutually exclusive; they may exist in any combination. For example, it is possible that both A can cause effect B and B can cause effect A (bidirectional or cyclic causation).

No conclusion can thus be made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause-and-effect relationship, and if so which direction the causality is, requires further investigation. If the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, the final relationship in the list above ("coincidence") may be statistically ruled out, but the correlation itself will not clarify whether A caused B, B caused A, or A and B were both caused by some other effect, C.
**

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

Unsubtantiated claim.

I believe that evidence is shoddy at best.

I believe it's quite shoddy evidence, considering the flimsy evidence that biological viruses exist at all.

You left out the part where causation REQUIRES correlation.


If the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, the final relationship in the list above ("coincidence") may be statistically ruled out,
[snip]
Correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence in fields such as medicine, psychology, and sociology. Correlations must first be confirmed as real, and every possible causative relationship must then be systematically explored. In the end, correlation alone cannot be used as evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, a risk factor and a disease, or a social or economic factor and various outcomes. It is one of the most abused types of evidence because it is easy and even tempting to come to premature conclusions based upon the preliminary appearance of a correlation.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Your quote doesn't actually say that causation requires correlation, though it does make sense.

I provided evidence of polio existing when DDT was not being used and polio not existing when DDT was being used in Africa. That means the correlation you are relying on is nothing more than coincidence.

You're not accounting for various things- things like dosage, duration of exposure, health of those exposed and perhaps most importantly, someone to test in a competent fashion for polio like symptoms. Also, as I've said before, I have never claimed there was any evidence that DDT was the -only- cause of polio. This should be obvious anyway, as polio was around before DDT. -Other- toxins were around though.

 

[Scott]

I suppose that's -one- way to make an argument. Just say that your belief is already proven and call it a day .

that's why totalitarianism is attractive to stupid people.

They get to feel right all the time with no effort.

I agree with the general sentiment, although I'd substitute something like "low information voters" for "stupid people".

I wouldn't.

Saunders also tends to make ad hominem attacks of this nature at times, perhaps varying "stupid people" with "idiots" and 'tin foil hatters'. I think the bottom line is the same- by attacking people's characters rather than their arguments, it tends to derail efforts to keep focused on the evidence for a given position rather than the person or people who hold said position.

 

[Scott]

exosomes exist too.

Agreed.

you guys keep going down the same dead end.

What dead end would that be and who are you referring to by "you guys"?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm simply noting that for the most part, this is just a conversation between you and me. I don't think it's hard to understand my position. What's hard is to understand how I got there. It requires a lot of reading of fairly technical information that I imagine most people don't think is worth their time. To be fair, I tend to have a fair amount of time to do these types of things and I understand that many people don't.



You made 2 claims:

1- That I have no evidence for my belief that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.

2- That I have no evidence disputing the existence of viruses.

I'm simply asking you to prove your claims. I'm pretty sure you won't even try, but I think it's good to point out the fact that you tend to make a lot of claims that you can't actually prove.

When are you going to prove Dr Bailey has evidence? The Baileys are the ones promoting pseudo-science. You have never been able to tell us what falsifiable theory they are advancing and how it can be falsified.
You are promoting pseudo-science since you keep using them as your source.

I have repeatedly pointed out things that have not been covered by Bailey.

A compelling case would tell us how the Nobel committee was wrong when they gave the prize for growing polio virus in a tissue medium. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us how Cutter vaccine could get 40,000 people sick if it was not a virus in the vaccine. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us what the actual source is for the illnesses allegedly caused by viruses is. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us why RNA is found for specific viruses in people that have an illness with specific symptoms. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us what is the the pictures that purport to show polio virus since it can't be polio virus. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.

Denial is not a compelling case. Ignoring evidence is not a compelling case. Cherry picking evidence that supports your beliefs is not a compelling case.

Now, it's up to you to tell us why the Baileys are cherry picking evidence and ignoring so much other evidence. Can you explain their behavior?

 

[Scott]

From a general principle standpoint, that certainly sounds good. However, if applied to someone like Saunders, I'd have reservations. It may well be that if it hadn't been for him not just doggedly sticking to his guns but posting why he disagrees with me that this thread might have died a long time ago.

This reminds me of a line from David Ray Griffin, who provided a lot of evidence that the events on September 11, 2001 were not as the official narrative would have it. He voiced this in the documentary Zeitgeist:

**
A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false. In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for people. The focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on it's function. A story cannot function unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation. It is not a matter of debate that some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story. The keepers of the faith won't enter into debate with them. They ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.
**

Source:
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/zeitgeist-transcript

It then segues into a line from Tucker Carlson, which I find ironic given that he's recently been given to quite a lot skepticism as to what the mainstream media says:

**
"It is wrong, blasphemous, and sinful for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that the US government killed 3000 of its own citizens."
**

All of this is to say that while it can at times be irritating for someone like Saunders to doggedly copy mainstream talking points on viruses, his continually doing so has perhaps provided more of a window for others to take a look at the differing points of view, which may well not have happened if he'd just said a few words and then stopped responding in this thread, perhaps denouncing it as blasphemous or some synonimous statement.

aren;t you reallly trying to talk about this specific current virus and the exosome theory on this specific virus, the covid?

This thread is actually meant to discuss whether biological viruses exist at all, though I believe that I and people I've quoted have tend to focus more on the alleged Cov 2 virus.

 

[Scott]

this whole thread was a psyop to "dirty the well" about exosomes and virus discussions.

for example, one can believe viruses exist, but THAT THE COVID VIRUS IN PARTICULAR IS FAKE NEWS.

these two are trying negate that as a position in this discussion.

I'm not. The way I see it, -anyone- who believes that things like lockdowns, covid vaccine mandates and mask mandates did more harm than good is in the same general mindset as I am.

To give an example, I agree more with someone who disagrees with the vaccine mandates even if they believe that the Cov 2 virus and every other virus ever postulated by man exists then someone who thought that the vaccine mandates were a good thing.

If you believe that the Cov 2 virus doesn't exist but still believe in other biological viruses, I can even point you to an article that supports that particular position, while having doubts about some other viruses, namely this one:

COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I may have once read about "microzymas", but it certainly wasn't a term I remembered. Anyway, I looked up the term and I came up with the following article on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zymotic_disease

It's a term that was apparently coined by Antoine Bechamp, who may well be the founder of Terrain theory, but I think it's important to note that he's a man who died over a century ago. Terrain theory has evolved since then. The linked article I pointed you to doesn't mention microzymas at all.

This would be another clear example of you and your pseudo-science as you make a false claim.

Are you saying you didn't bother to read the link you gave? It's right there in the comparison of terrain theory to germ theory.
https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/the-terrain-theory-vs-the-germ-theory

Terrain theory:
insists there is a smaller unit of life, the microzyme (plural microzymas)

The word microzymas is used at least 4 times in your link. You can't search for it because it isn't in the text but it is there. Can you see it now?

So now.. tell us when microzymas have been isolated and grown in culture.
Or are you saying we shouldn't use the same standard for microzymas that you demand we use for viruses?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You seem to believe that I don't understand the meaning of the word. Can you explain why?

I also note that you haven't even attempted to prove that calling or implying that someone is an idiot isn't an ad hominem attack.

An answer to the contentions made is not an ad hominem no matter what words are used. That is why you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "rather."
The fact that you ignore all the arguments made in answer to your contentions does not make my argument an ad hominem. It means you are attempting to not deal with the arguments by pulling a bullshit move.


marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made