Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

2- It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates.

The deception here is by Dr Bailey where he fails to address the hundreds of other samples and the hundreds of other de novo assemblies.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00938-3/fulltext

You keep on going on about these repetitions of the same methodology, when it's the methodology itself that is the problem.

3- Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies.

Using Dr Bailey's ignoring of hundreds of times the Sars-Cov-2 genome has been sequenced de novo from hundreds of different patients, the only fantasy seems to be Dr Bailey's beliefs that ignore evidence and all those experiments that confirm the one he claims is false.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/omi.2022.0042?journalCode=omi

I haven't seen any evidence that Dr. Mark Bailey has ignored anything. He's pointing out the flaws in their methodology. Using a flawed methodology will result in flawed results. In this case, phylogenetic trees that are fantasies.

4- The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction [aka PCR tests] has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic.

PCR tests are not used when assembling the viral genome de novo.

He never claimed they did. He was talking about how the PCR tests were a key part of creating this alleged "pandemic".

Now, you could say that you disagree with 1 or more of these claims and ask to see the evidence for them. At which point, the ball would be in my court- I'd need to look through his essay to find evidence for his claims.

Science is based on being able to repeat experiments to get similar results.

Yes, but it's also based on following the scientific methodology when conducting experiments. What I believe Dr. Mark Bailey has argued quite well is that virology doesn't follow the scientific method with its experiments.

 

[Scott]

I don't see how, but perhaps you explain further down, so let's see...

I can certainly agree that if people thought unicorns looked like lizards with horns, I certainly wouldn't think they were mammals closely related to horses, assuming they existed. I really don't see your point though.

I challenge you to find me -ever- saying that there is proof that biological viruses exist. I'm pretty sure I have claimed that no virus has ever satisfied Koch's postulates as far as I know. It's a rather different claim.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Imagining what a creature would be and then using that imagined creature as your basis to describe that creature is circular reasoning because your conclusions about what the creature is are simply what you imagined the creature to be. It is circular in that the conclusion is the predicate.
I imagine a unicorn is a mammal therefor a unicorn is a mammal. <<<<--- circular.

In this case, it's virologists who have claimed that biological viruses exist. The only thing that the doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post are saying is that they'd like to see if the virologists can provide solid evidence that they do in fact exist.

 

[Scott]

Virologists themselves are the ones that have claimed to isolate and culture biological viruses. This is just a matter of asking them to provide evidence that they actually did so.

Really? Where is anyone asking them to just provide evidence?

A group of doctors and other professionals have asked them to provide evidence. It's all detailed in the opening post of this thread.

 

[Scott]

If viruses are not real, how did democrats and their Chinese Communist masters murder 4 million people with one?

What evidence do you have that a biological virus murdered anyone?

 

[Scott]

No, your alleged logic statements, quoted above, are yours.

LOL.
Now you are just denying what Dr Bailey wrote.

No, I just pointed out that a certain logic statement you made was flawed.

Dr Bailey clearly states that a virus be grown in culture as evidence viruses exist.

Agreed.

Dr Bailey clearly denies that viruses exist.

He doesn't believe they exist, true. He is -also- asking virologists to provide evidence that they exist.

Something that doesn't exist cannot be classified as if it did exist.

The purpose of this thread is to try to determine whether or not biological viruses exist. Virologists have classified them as microscopic parasites. Those who are skeptical that biological viruses exist have simply accepted virologists' classification and are asking them to provide solid evidence that they do in fact exist.

Virologists do not all classify viruses as microbes. Therefor viruses may or may not be microbes.

True, but they would still classify them as microscopic.

Multiple creatures can not be grown in culture by they still exist as living creatures.

Yes, but I believe that -all- of those creatures are not microscopic. Or do you know of some other microscopic self replicating entity that can't be grown in culture?

 

[Scott]

I was describing -your- essay writing, in the form of posts.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that you stating your conclusions before your evidence doesn't make for a very persuasive essay.

ROFLMAO.
Let's look at Dr Bailey's essay.

Is this his conclusion?

**
They [viruses] are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them.
**

That's not from Dr. Mark Bailey's essay. That's from the Settling the Virus Debate Statement, located here:

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

Does he state that conclusion before he provides evidence?

Setting aside the authorship of the paper (I believe it may be Dr. Tom Cowan), he certainly provides evidence before making that statement. It's a statement that was made in the middle of the second paragraph. Here's the first paragraph and the -complete- second paragraph:

**
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.
**

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I don't know what your papers say, but you can certainly quote any part of them that you feel is relevant here. I trust that Dr. Mark Bailey is correct when he says the following, which is what I'm trying to convey:

If you don't know what my papers say then you are clearly making up what you are arguing against. That would seem to be a classic straw man.

 

[Scott]

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!!!!

Where in the papers I linked to do they show they used any previous Sars-COV to match?

I don't know what your papers say, but you can certainly quote any part of them that you feel is relevant here. I trust that Dr. Mark Bailey is correct when he says the following, which is what I'm trying to convey:

**
Part Two examines the fraud used to propagate the COVID-19 “pandemic.” A breakdown of the methodology relied upon by the original inventors Fan Wu et al., shows how the fictional SARS-CoV-2 was “created” through anti-scientific methods and linguistic sleights of hands. It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templatng them against previous “virus” templates. Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction [PCR tests] has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic.
**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com

If you don't know what my papers say then you are clearly making up what you are arguing against. That would seem to be a classic straw man.

If you can find any evidence in your papers that suggests that they are -not- using classic virology methods, let me know. If they are using virology methods, Dr. Mark Bailey explains why those methods are anti scientific in his essay.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Saying pseudo-science countless times doesn't debunk anything.

No. My arguments that you can't refute debunk your pseudo-science.
You have refuted nothing in my post 1206. You seem to think that if you ignore my arguments you can keep believing in your pseudo-science.
Can I simply claim a method is flawed and have that as my argument? Or should I show some logic or data to support my claim?
Dr Bailey has been debunked because his method is flawed. You have agreed his method is flawed.

A is a living creature that is not a microbe and can't be isolated and grown in culture.
B is a living creature that is a microbe and can be isolated and grown in culture.
C may or may not be a microbe.
therefor
For C to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture as if it was a microbe.

Dr Bailey ignores that living creatures can exist that can't be grown in culture.
Dr Bailey says viruses don't exist and then classifies them as if they do exist and their properties are known.
Dr Bailey then concludes that viruses don't exist because they can't be isolated and grown in a culture.
Dr Bailey is using pseudo-science. You keep quoting Dr Bailey. You are repeating debunked pseudo-science.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

and 5g kills us all.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Glad you've finally gotten around to responding to it.



Agreed.



Strongly disagree, on both counts.

You disagree but can't seem to make one logical or valid argument to refute my debunking

He's right. It was that one patient that started it all. The fact that other virologists then did the same flawed experiments and found the same or similar results doesn't change that.

The only farcical thing is the claim that the virus was found in only one patient.
It has been found and assembled de novo in samples from over 1,000 patients around the world just in the 3 papers I presented to you. Each of those times they didn't rely on the Wuhan patient.
The fact that you refuse to read those papers shows you are practicing pseudo-science. The fact that you deny the results of those papers without any evidence to show why they are wrong shows you are practicing pseudo-science.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that it's the methodology that's flawed. It doesn't matter how many times a flawed methodology is used, if the method is flawed, the results will be too.



Same point as the ones I've made above- a flawed methodology will lead to flawed results.

What part of the methodology was flawed? They didn't use one patient which is Dr Bailey's complaint. They used the same process as was used to find the human genome in assembling the virus de novo. Simply claiming their method was flawed when you don't even know what method they used because you haven't read their papers proves you are practicing pseudo-science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I just pointed out that a certain logic statement you made was flawed.



Agreed.



He doesn't believe they exist, true. He is -also- asking virologists to provide evidence that they exist.

Congratulations. You have just agreed that Dr Bailey uses the same predicates as I use in the logic construct that you claim is flawed.
Now.. Do you agree that Dr Bailey's conclusion is that viruses don't exist? Because that conclusion is the same conclusion that you admit is flawed.

The purpose of this thread is to try to determine whether or not biological viruses exist. Virologists have classified them as microscopic parasites. Those who are skeptical that biological viruses exist have simply accepted virologists' classification and are asking them to provide solid evidence that they do in fact exist.

Congratulations on your pseudo-science. You have just admitted that those skeptical have done nothing that would be considered science. Asking others to prove your theory is pseudo-science.

True, but they would still classify them as microscopic.

A meaningless red herring. A molecule of H2O is microscopic but I wouldn't argue that it's size is what makes it alive or dead.

Yes, but I believe that -all- of those creatures are not microscopic. Or do you know of some other microscopic self replicating entity that can't be grown in culture?

Sure. Virons.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In this case, it's virologists who have claimed that biological viruses exist. The only thing that the doctors and other professionals referenced in the opening post are saying is that they'd like to see if the virologists can provide solid evidence that they do in fact exist.

Laying out a test that is not logical or scientific is not asking for proof. It is pseudo-science.

This is the logic presented by your "professionals."

A is a living creature that is not a microbe and can't be isolated and grown in culture.
B is a living creature that is a microbe and can be isolated and grown in culture.
C may or may not be a microbe.
therefor
For C to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture as if it was a microbe.

You have admitted that their logic is flawed. You have admitted that the predicates are theirs. You have pushed their conclusions repeatedly.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You keep on going on about these repetitions of the same methodology, when it's the methodology itself that is the problem.

What part of the methodology is flawed. Cite it.

I haven't seen any evidence that Dr. Mark Bailey has ignored anything. He's pointing out the flaws in their methodology. Using a flawed methodology will result in flawed results. In this case, phylogenetic trees that are fantasies.

OK. If he hasn't ignored anything then tell us where he addresses the following papers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33822878/
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/omi.2022.0042?journalCode=omi
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9013232/
I look forward to your pointing out where that happens in his essay.

He never claimed they did. He was talking about how the PCR tests were a key part of creating this alleged "pandemic".

If you are arguing that the PCR tests are part of the de novo process then you are clearly wrong.
PCR tests have been used hundreds of millions of times. I am not arguing those PCR tests. I am specifically talking about the de novo assemblies that Dr Baily fails to address.

Yes, but it's also based on following the scientific methodology when conducting experiments. What I believe Dr. Mark Bailey has argued quite well is that virology doesn't follow the scientific method with its experiments.

No. Dr Bailey has simply used faulty logic and then you refuse to accept his logic is faulty.

Here is the logic Dr Bailey is using:
A is a living creature that is not a microbe and can't be isolated and grown in culture.
B is a living creature that is a microbe and can be isolated and grown in culture.
C may or may not be a microbe.
therefor
For C to be a living creature it must be isolated and grown in culture as if it was a microbe.

Purification occurs when a bacteria be grown in culture and isolated.
Here is Dr Bailey again.

Using the commonly accepted definition of
“isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has
never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification
have not been shown to be replication-competent,

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Congratulations. You have just agreed that Dr Bailey uses the same predicates as I use in the logic construct that you claim is flawed.
Now.. Do you agree that Dr Bailey's conclusion is that viruses don't exist? Because that conclusion is the same conclusion that you admit is flawed.

Congratulations on your pseudo-science. You have just admitted that those skeptical have done nothing that would be considered science. Asking others to prove your theory is pseudo-science.
A meaningless red herring. A molecule of H2O is microscopic but I wouldn't argue that it's size is what makes it alive or dead.


Sure. Virons.

lol. virons. obviousy only theoretical.

words that dumb are always fake.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

**
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.
**

Please tell us what actual evidence he provides in those 2 paragraphs by highlighting the supposed evidence. I am curious as to what you think is evidence that is introduced to support the conclusion in the second paragraph.

Since Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Mark Bailey both signed that document why can't I consider them authors?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

lol. virons. obviousy only theoretical.

words that dumb are always fake.

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

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

so i guess phoenyx knows he's "polluting the well" at this point.

 

[Scott]

Saying pseudo-science countless times doesn't debunk anything.

No. My arguments that you can't refute debunk your pseudo-science.

Pseudo-science is actually filled with things that can't be debunked. Virology is a great example of pseudo science in action, which is probably why there have been no virologists who have been willing to try to provide strong evidence that viruses actually exist, or don't, depending on the results of the tests outlined in the opening post of this thread. Science works on finding ways one could try to falsify theories, which is precisely what the authors of the statement made in the opening post of this thread have attempted to do.

You have refuted nothing in my post 1206.

First of all, the first definition of refute from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th addition is "To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof." You should know by now that I have seldom if ever claimed that I can prove anything. I tend to simply make arguments that I believe are persuasive.

Secondly, I made 3 responses to your post #1206. Post #1219 was only the first, the other 2 responses being 1220 and 1221. I see that you've responded to those posts as well, via your posts 1231 and 1234. I plan on getting to those relatively soon.

 

[Scott]

Dr Bailey has no evidence. He makes unsubstantiated claims.

Strongly disagree, on both counts.

You disagree but can't seem to make one logical or valid argument to refute my debunking

Anyone can claim that their arguments remain undefeated. It's not a very productive use of time, generally akin to saying "You're wrong and I'm right". Better is to stay focused on the arguments themselves.

He's right. It was that one patient that started it all. The fact that other virologists then did the same flawed experiments and found the same or similar results doesn't change that.

The only farcical thing is the claim that the virus was found in only one patient.

Dr. Mark Bailey is claiming that the alleged Cov 2 virus wasn't actually found at all. It all has to do with the flawed methodology used to find biological viruses to begin with.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that it's the methodology that's flawed. It doesn't matter how many times a flawed methodology is used, if the method is flawed, the results will be too.

Same point as the ones I've made above- a flawed methodology will lead to flawed results.

What part of the methodology was flawed?

Glad you asked. From Dr. Mark Bailey's "A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), Part II", beginning on page 28:

**
In The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity83 we documented the invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico “genome” from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.”84 A further analysis of this paper is indicated as it illustrates how the fraudulent COVID-19 pandemic was created by means of an invented “genome” through deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing, which simply sought to detect all the RNA in a crude sample, and how it was misused to invent a non-existent pathogen. The claim that anyone can declare, “[they] identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus,”85 from a single human subject diagnosed with pneumonia is farcical in itself. The authors tried to justify this by stating, “although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study.”

Firstly, there was no physical isolation of any virus as will be discussed in detail momentarily. Secondly, their claim of being “independently corroborated” is a reference to the February 2020 paper of Peng Zhou et al. — a paper that cannot corroborate anything and the fraud of which is discussed on page 41. All that can be said is that if circular reasoning is employed, then finding similar genetic sequences on more than one occasion is seen as confirmation of a virus. The GISAID database is the treasure chest of this virological nonsense and by 29 August 2022 had over 12.8 million claims of having ‘found’ SARS-CoV-2.86 However none of them can point to an actual virus, they are simply calling ‘bingo’ by assembling similar sequences which they have aligned with Fan Wu et al. and other previous assemblies, no actual virus required.

It should also be noted that while the author does not make pronouncement as to the cause of any case of pneumonia or acute febrile respiratory syndromes, the general medical community acknowledges that no “pathogen” is identified in around half of the cases.87,88 So what reason did Fan Wu et al. have to suspect that their patient was harbouring a brand new virus? Apparently because, “epidemiological investigations by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the patient worked at a local indoor seafood market.”89 It would seem a very weak reason given the fact that these wet markets are extremely common in China and that despite the bat-origin theories, Fan Wu et al. reported, “no bats were available for sale.”

In any case, they obtained some bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from their patient and with this crude specimen reported that, “total RNA was extracted from 200μl of BALF.” Their methods secEon detailed that this was achieved, “using the RNeasy Plus Universal Mini kit (Qiagen),” i.e. through spin column centrifugation. They claimed that, “ribosomal RNA depletion was performed during library construcEon,” however, see page 43 as to why this is dubious as there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences. They then proceeded to shotgun sequence the brew, starting with random fragmentation of the genetic material into short lengths averaging 150 nucleoEdes and conversion of the RNA to DNA using a reverse transcriptase enzyme.90 56,565,928 such short reads were generated and this informaEon was fed into Megahit and Trinity, software platforms for de novo algorithm-based assembly. Through Megahit, 384,096 contigs, or hypothetical overlapping sequences were generated and the longest one (30,474 nucleotides) was declared to have a “nucleotide identity of 89.1%” to bat SL-CoVZC45, another fictional construct that will be dealt with subsequently. (Trinity generated over 1.3 million contigs but the longest one was only 11,760 nucleotides — in other words, they would not have found the “genome” if they had just used this software platform.) The word ‘virus’ suddenly appeared when they state, “the genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse- transcription PCR.” This is a sleight of hand as the PCR simply amplifies pre-selected sequences and has no capacity to confirm a previously unknown genome. As PCR expert Stephen Bustin has explained, “PCR requires you to know what the sequence of your target is...so once you know that there’s something in your sample, then you would try to isolate it, yes. And then once you’ve isolated it, then you sequence it again, or PCR it up.”91 In other words, PCR itself cannot identify the origins of the sequences and the methodology of Fan Wu et al. did not establish the origin of their described sequences. However, in the very next sentence they announce to the world that, “this virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV)”.

— We need to pause at this point as it is where the fraudulent virus, soon to be renamed SARS-CoV-2, was invented out of thin air. A virus that the WHO claims, with no evidential support whatsoever, is the causative agent of COVID-19.

For it is this “genome” that was submitted to GenBank on the 5th of January 202092 that was seized on by Drosten et al. to help produce their phoney PCR protocol assay sequences,93 which in turn were published with indecent haste by the WHO for all the world to use, thereby turning WH- Human 1 into the world’s reference genome for a claimed pathogen. It is this invenEon that is responsible for the whole bag of destructive tricks imposed on the world following the announcement of the pandemic by the WHO on the 11th of March 2020.94

However, anyone paying attention can see that there is no evidence whatsoever of a virus in the Fan Wu et al. paper. A virus is claimed to be a tiny replication-competent obligate intracellular parasite, consisting of a genome surrounded by a proteinaceous coat: it is an infectious particle that causes disease in a host. All Fan Wu et al. had was a 41-year-old man with pneumonia and a software-assembled model “genome” made from sequences of unestablished origin found in the man’s lung washings. To make it appear legitimate they stated, “the viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119) and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933).” These alleged genomes are also simply in silico constructs that have never been proven to exist in their entirety in nature, let alone been shown to come from inside a virus. For example bat SL-CoVZC45 was invented in 2018 by the process of, “19 degenerated PCR primer pairs...designed by multiple alignment of available SARS-CoV and bat SL-CoV sequences deposited in GenBank.”95

The virus genomes have become what is possibly the greatest illusion in virology, an illusion which propagates a belief that viruses are indeed being shown to exist. The virologists themselves don’t seem to appreciate the fatal flaw in their methodologies even when they state it themselves:

Three main methods based on HTS [high-throughput sequencing] are currently used for viral whole-genome sequencing: metagenomic sequencing, target enrichment sequencing and PCR amplicon sequencing, each showing benefits and drawbacks (Houldcrob et al., 2017). In metagenomic sequencing, total DNA (and/or RNA) from a sample including host but also bacteria, viruses and fungi is extracted and sequenced. It is a simple and cost-effec6ve approach, and it is the only approach not requiring reference sequences. Instead, the other two HTS approaches, target enrichment and amplicon sequencing, both depend on reference informa6on to design baits or primers. The limita6on of metagenomic sequencing is that it requires a very high sequencing depth to obtain enough viral genome material.96​

The more important limitation with ‘viral’ sequencing is that the process itself does not determine the provenance of the genetic fragments, so how can it be used to establish the sequence of a previously unknown genome? For clarity, we are not talking about situations where the provenance of the sequences can be independently verified, for example, physically-isolated bacterial cells. Additionally, it is nonsensical to arbitrarily declare that sequences are viral by a process of elimination, that is, based on the fact that they do not have a previously conflicting assignation on the genetic databanks. None of the virologists are demonstrating that the sequences are viral in nature when they assemble the very first template and declare they have discovered a pathogenic virus. At no stage are any of them purifying alleged viral particles to prove their relationship with the sequences. And yet the first invented de novo genome becomes the touchstone with which other virus hunters will align their own in silico genomes or design ‘confirmatory’ PCR protocols.

As far as the author is aware, the virologists do not have any laboratory techniques that can directly check whether there even exists a complete 30 kilobase RNA strand in any of their samples. Existing pulsed-field gel electrophoresis technology can only reliably differentiate DNA strands of this size.97 In any case, these simulations remain a distraction because even in the event that the physical existence of an in silico SARS-CoV-2 genome — a complete 30 kilobase RNA sequence — can be shown to exist in nature, the virologists would still have plenty of work to do. First and foremost they would have to demonstrate that this sequence belongs to a disease- causing replication-competent particle that can make a person ill and not just claim it does.
**

Dr. Mark Bailey then goes on to detail some exchanges he's had with 2 experts who believe in the Cov 2 virus, first with an evolutionary biologist and then with a pathologist/virologist named Dr. Sin Lee Hang. I think that both exchanges also offer insights to the methodological flaws of virology.