Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

What do you think "correlations must first be confirmed as real" means? It means that the correlation must actually exist. It can't be just a one time coincidence. I presented multiple times that DDT did not exist or was not in use at the time polio was clearly affecting people.

Polio symptoms are described as far back as ancient Egypt.
The first medical description was in the late 1800s. 1789 by the British physician Michael Underwood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michae...od_(physician)
Jakob Heine did a study of polio in 1840, almost 40 years before DDT was first made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Heine
In 1916, NY had a polio epidemic, 23 years before DDT was ever used as an insecticide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_N...polio_epidemic
DDT was first synthesized in 1874. It's use as an insecticide wasn't discovered until 1939. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
In 1928, the iron lung was introduced to be used for polio patients and keep them alive. No DDT was being used as an insecticide.
Africa stopped using DDT in the 1960s. Polio was around when DDT wasn't being used. By the time DDT was reintroduced to help control malaria, the cases of Polio had dropped to almost zero due to vaccines.


It's funny how you seem to completely ignore the evidence and go off on another pseudo-science tangent. If polio existed for thousands of years before DDT and polio existed where DDT wasn't being used and DDT was being used where polio wasn't prevalent then the 1950s are nothing more than a coincidence that in no way shows a correlation. It certainly isn't statistically significant enough to show there is a correlation.

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.

What am I not accounting for? What dosage of DDT existed in 1916 in NY? What duration of DDT exposure existed in 1916 in NY? You keep claiming that DDT causes polio and then backtrack and claim it could be anything. Since you have no evidence of anything causing polio but there is evidence of the polio virus causing polio how can you state with any certainty that a virus doesn't cause polio? All you have is

pseudo-science

as you deny something and offer no valid explanation that stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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?

LOL. Thanks for admitting that you are using pseudo-science.

Humans aren't microbes so they can't be grow in a culture. So clearly living creatures exist that can't be grown in a culture.

You claim viruses don't exist.
If viruses don't exist then they can't be microbes.
Only microbes can be grown in culture.
Viruses aren't microbes so viruses can't be grown in culture.

I guess we just proved your argument is not logical.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Look at you being all mighty sanctimonious as you attack my character and don't address the issue of whether viruses exist.

What would you call that kind of a post?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed.



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

The dead end would be you keep going back to the same sources over and over and never addressing the legitimate issues I raise as to your arguments and your sources credibility.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

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.

sometimes we really are talking about stupid people tho.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

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.

so cov2 is alleged?

Just checking.

 

[Scott]

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?

I said virologists, plural. It's all laid out in post #982. Follow the nested quotes.

 

[Scott]

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?

Nice deflection, but we were talking about -your- claims, not mine, remember? Look, I don't expect you to be able to prove the 2 claims you made. Heck, I don't think you should even bother to try. I believe it's an impossible task. Why not just admit that you bit off more than you can chew and call it a day?

 

[Scott]

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?

I read some of it, and I did a search for the letters "zymas", got nothing. I didn't consider that some of the text was in non searchable format.

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?

Yes.

So now.. tell us when microzymas have been isolated and grown in culture.

I don't believe they ever have. In fact, I think they share an uncanny resemblance to most if not all microbes that are called "viruses". I did a search on Dr. Mark Bailey's essay "Farewell to Virology", I don't believe there's any non searchable portion in it, and I found no mention of any word with "zymas" in it.

 

[Scott]

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.

Ahhh, I think I get you now. You seem to think that just because you have responded to various points that this somehow means words like "idiots" are no longer ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but you can respond to points -and- use an ad hominem, or personal attack. From Wikipedia:

**
"Personal attack" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
**

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

In this case, you're B, asserting that I and/or others like me (aka A) holds a property that is unwelcome (aka that people who believe things as I do are "idiots" and therefore shouldn't be believed. The fact that you -also- at times address certain points doesn't change the fact that you engage in ad hominem attacks.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I said virologists, plural. It's all laid out in post #982. Follow the nested quotes.

It would appear we are talking about some doctor that disagrees with them since that is all that is in post 982.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nice deflection, but we were talking about -your- claims, not mine, remember? Look, I don't expect you to be able to prove the 2 claims you made. Heck, I don't think you should even bother to try. I believe it's an impossible task. Why not just admit that you bit off more than you can chew and call it a day?

Interesting that you accuse me of deflection when it is you that ignores almost my entire post that lays out an argument that you don't dispute. Let me repeat it and see if you can respond to it with an valid arguments.


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?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I read some of it, and I did a search for the letters "zymas", got nothing. I didn't consider that some of the text was in non searchable format.



Yes.



I don't believe they ever have. In fact, I think they share an uncanny resemblance to most if not all microbes that are called "viruses". I did a search on Dr. Mark Bailey's essay "Farewell to Virology", I don't believe there's any non searchable portion in it, and I found no mention of any word with "zymas" in it.

Dr Young is not Dr Bailey. you presented Dr Young as evidence in support of your beliefs. This seems to be something you have done constantly. You cite someone and then claim you don't believe most of what they said but only believe certain cherry picked parts. Terrain theory relies quite heavily on microzyma since that is what Bechamp proposed. Microzyma located in the cells transform into bacteria so the disease causes the bacteria and not the other way around.

Cherry picking evidence is pseudo-science. Your constantly resorting to sources you can't defend is pseudo-science. Your failure to present credible experimental work is pseudo-science. Your denial is pseudo-science. Your failure to propose a falsifiable theory is pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Ahhh, I think I get you now. You seem to think that just because you have responded to various points that this somehow means words like "idiots" are no longer ad hominem attacks. Sorry, but you can respond to points -and- use an ad hominem, or personal attack. From Wikipedia:

**
"Personal attack" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
**

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

In this case, you're B, asserting that I and/or others like me (aka A) holds a property that is unwelcome (aka that people who believe things as I do are "idiots" and therefore shouldn't be believed. The fact that you -also- at times address certain points doesn't change the fact that you engage in ad hominem attacks.

Calling someone an idiot and laying out the reasons why they are wrong is not an ad hominem attack. by the very definition you just cited.

A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

At no time have I concluded that Dr Bailey is wrong because he is an idiot. I have said he is an idiot because he is wrong. Causation doesn't seem to be your strong suit. An ad hominem requires that the conclusion is that x is wrong solely because A is an idiot. If you can find the post where I said Baily is wrong because he is an idiot and then presented no other argument please show where that occurred.

 

[Scott]

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

What do you think "correlations must first be confirmed as real" means?

It means "correlations must first be confirmed as real".

It means that the correlation must actually exist.

No, it still just means "correlations must first be confirmed as real". If they're not, they're false correlations.

It can't be just a one time coincidence.

Agreed. A false correlation is just a coincidence.

I presented multiple times that DDT did not exist or was not in use at the time polio was clearly affecting people.

I don't know how many times I need to tell you that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio, but here I'm doing it... again -.- A while back, I referenced and quoted an article from Tessa Lena, published at Children's Health Defense. Here's part of it that delves into the -many- potential causes of polio:

**
Poliomyelitis-like symptoms caused by poisoning

In 1951, Dr. Ralph R. Scobey published an article in Archives of Pediatrics, titled “Is the public health law responsible for the poliomyelitis mystery?”

In the article, Scobey investigated the evidence showing the contagiousness (or not) of poliomyelitis — and talked about how the research into complex causes of the disease had been decapitated once the “official” opinion was declared. Among other things, he stated the following:

“Unlimited poliomyelitis research ceased abruptly when this disease was legally made a communicable disease. However, definite progress toward a solution to the problem was being made before the public health law made poliomyelitis a germ or virus disease. For example, it was reported by toxicologists and bacteriologists that poliomyelitis could be produced both by organic and inorganic poisons as well as by bacterial toxins.

“The relationship of this disease to beriberi was also being given consideration. However, these investigations lost support when a germ or virus came to be considered by some to be the full and final answer to the problem. Funds for poliomyelitis research were from then on designated for the investigation of the infectious theory only.

“There are today many investigators who have strong evidence contradicting the infectious theory. Vitamin and mineral deficiency, poison, allergy and other theories are being presented to explain the mystery, but these men, because of the public health law and the limited ability to obtain funds or cooperation from any source cannot work freely on the problem of [the] cause of poliomyelitis.

“At one time or another the classical dietary deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, and even sunstroke, have been considered to be communicable infectious diseases. If by law any one, or all of these diseases, had been made a reportable communicable disease, it is obvious that today it would legally be a germ disease and a search for the causative germ might still be in progress.

“If beriberi and pellagra had been made reportable communicable diseases, it is conceivable that the epochal studies on vitamins by Funk and subsequent workers could have been ignored in the search for the infectious agent as the etiological factor in these diseases. The progress of medicine would have been seriously retarded.

“The time is long past due for careful reappraisal of the poliomyelitis problem and for many capable workers with various opinions regarding the cause of the disease to be given the opportunity to work and the funds with which to work. The implications of the public health law that poliomyelitis is an infectious communicable disease must be reconsidered if progress is to be made.”​

**

Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It means "correlations must first be confirmed as real".



No, it still just means "correlations must first be confirmed as real". If they're not, they're false correlations.



Agreed. A false correlation is just a coincidence.



I don't know how many times I need to tell you that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio, but here I'm doing it... again -.- A while back, I referenced and quoted an article from Tessa Lena, published at Children's Health Defense. Here's part of it that delves into the -many- potential causes of polio:

**
Poliomyelitis-like symptoms caused by poisoning

In 1951, Dr. Ralph R. Scobey published an article in Archives of Pediatrics, titled “Is the public health law responsible for the poliomyelitis mystery?”

In the article, Scobey investigated the evidence showing the contagiousness (or not) of poliomyelitis — and talked about how the research into complex causes of the disease had been decapitated once the “official” opinion was declared. Among other things, he stated the following:

“Unlimited poliomyelitis research ceased abruptly when this disease was legally made a communicable disease. However, definite progress toward a solution to the problem was being made before the public health law made poliomyelitis a germ or virus disease. For example, it was reported by toxicologists and bacteriologists that poliomyelitis could be produced both by organic and inorganic poisons as well as by bacterial toxins.

“The relationship of this disease to beriberi was also being given consideration. However, these investigations lost support when a germ or virus came to be considered by some to be the full and final answer to the problem. Funds for poliomyelitis research were from then on designated for the investigation of the infectious theory only.

“There are today many investigators who have strong evidence contradicting the infectious theory. Vitamin and mineral deficiency, poison, allergy and other theories are being presented to explain the mystery, but these men, because of the public health law and the limited ability to obtain funds or cooperation from any source cannot work freely on the problem of [the] cause of poliomyelitis.

“At one time or another the classical dietary deficiency diseases, beriberi and pellagra, and even sunstroke, have been considered to be communicable infectious diseases. If by law any one, or all of these diseases, had been made a reportable communicable disease, it is obvious that today it would legally be a germ disease and a search for the causative germ might still be in progress.

“If beriberi and pellagra had been made reportable communicable diseases, it is conceivable that the epochal studies on vitamins by Funk and subsequent workers could have been ignored in the search for the infectious agent as the etiological factor in these diseases. The progress of medicine would have been seriously retarded.

“The time is long past due for careful reappraisal of the poliomyelitis problem and for many capable workers with various opinions regarding the cause of the disease to be given the opportunity to work and the funds with which to work. The implications of the public health law that poliomyelitis is an infectious communicable disease must be reconsidered if progress is to be made.”​

**

Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

So you are arguing that you have no clue what causes polio symptoms and since you have no clue what causes those symptoms that proves that it can't be a virus.
Pseudo-science at its best. You just pretend it can be something other than a virus and that makes your argument valid?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It means "correlations must first be confirmed as real".



No, it still just means "correlations must first be confirmed as real". If they're not, they're false correlations.

Correlation is not confirmed as real if we have multiple instances of:
One thing happening but not the second
the second thing happening but not the first
More instances of one and not the other than of the two together.

Polio occurs quite often when DDT is not present
DDT has been used without polio occurring
More history of polio without DDT usage than polio with DDT usage

Assuming a correlation exists until proven it doesn't exist is pseudo-science.

 

[Scott]

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?

LOL. Thanks for admitting that you are using pseudo-science.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Humans aren't microbes so they can't be grow in a culture.

Agreed.

So clearly living creatures exist that can't be grown in a culture.

Also agreed.

You claim viruses don't exist.

I -believe- that viruses don't exist. It's a subtle difference, but one of the reasons that I say believe rather than claim is that I don't claim to have proof that they don't exist.

If viruses don't exist then they can't be microbes.
Only microbes can be grown in culture.

Ah, now -that- is some pretty fancy footwork there. If viruses exist, they are microbes. Various virologists have -claimed- that they have isolated and grown viruses in culture. The issue is whether those claims are true.

 

[Scott]

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.

Look at you being all mighty sanctimonious as you attack my character and don't address the issue of whether viruses exist.

I'm not calling you by any base ad hominem attack. I'm simply pointing out that by using ad hominem attacks (and I make it clear that you're not alone there), it tends to distract from the subject of a thread (unless the subject of the thread -is- someone being attacked, but that clearly isn't the case here).

 

[Scott]

exosomes exist too.

you guys keep going down the same dead end.

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

The dead end would be you keep going back to the same sources over and over and never addressing the legitimate issues I raise as to your arguments and your sources credibility.

You notice how JesusAI said "you guys", not "Phoenyx"? Whatever dead end JesusAI was thinking of, it involved more than one person.