No. You are not inclined to look for the most compelling evidence. You are inclined to only accept evidence that supports your position and discounting the mountain of evidence that shows your position to be false.
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
ZenMode
Well-known member
So, how much of the evidence supporting the existence of biological viruses have you researched?
And they also thought that bacteria and viruses didn't exist, then science happened and we were all enlightened. Of course the folks thought that "bad blood" was the problem back then....
Oddly more folks think the world is flat now than did back in Columbus's day.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
These guys here are tougher than I am. I simply have no tolerance for your misinformed, willful ignorance. YOU are the one ignoring the truth.
If vaccines don't work, how did the virus-caused disease that has killed MILLIONS -- smallpox -- become extinct? Why did polio become so rare in first world countries? Why aren't measles outbreaks common among the vaccinated?
He's a non-scientist with unshakable opinions on science he expresses in a civil manner which makes them sound all the more foolish.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Yes. About the best thing I can say of Scott is that at least he's civil even when challenged. The world could use more of that. But less silliness like viruses aren't real Trump cares about Americans, and weed is evil. lol
Scott
Verified User
Highlight what you think is actual evidence in your screed?No, it's rooted in solid evidence that Mike Stone has provided. I'll quote some of this evidence below:
**
Did Pasteur and Koch provide the necessary scientific evidence required in order to confirm the germ hypothesis? What does it take to accept or reject a hypothesis? How does a hypothesis go on to become a scientific theory? In the first of a two-part examination of the germ hypothesis looking at the work of both men, we will begin by inspecting two of Pasteur's early attempts to prove his hypothesis in the cases of chicken cholera and rabies. We will investigate how he arrived at his germ hypothesis, and then look to see if his experimental evidence reflected anything that could be witnessed in nature. In doing so, we will find out whether or not Louis Pasteur was ever able to validate and confirm his germ hypothesis.
[snip]
According to French-American microbiologist Rene Dubos, the “central dogma of the germ theory is that each particular type of fermentation or of disease is caused by specific a kind of microbe.” While the idea that disease could be caused by invisible germs had been around since Girolamo Fracastoro published De Contagione et Contagiosis Morbis in 1546, French chemist Louis Pasteur conjured up his own germ hypothesis in the early 1860s based upon his work on fermentation. Granted, Pasteur had largely plagiarized from the work of French chemist and physician Antoine Bechamp, which he subsequently misinterpreted as Bechamp saw the microbes, which he referred to as microzymas, performing a necessary and vital function by breaking down substances and tissues in order to carry away dead cells and other waste products. In other words, germs are nature's clean-up crew and are not the cause of disease. As he noted in The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element, Bechamp viewed these processes as being born within all living things based upon the internal environment of the individual:
“The bacteridiae were not the cause of the diseased condition, but were one of its effects; proceeding from the morbid microzymas they were capable of inducing this diseased condition in the animal whose microzymas were in a condition to receive it. Hence it is seen that the alteration of natural animal matters is spontaneous, and justifies the old aphorism so concisely expressed by Pidoux: “Diseases are born of us and in us.”
“On the other hand, the disregard of this law of nature, the firm establishment whereof is completed by the present work, necessarily led M. Pasteur to deny the truth of the aphorism, and to imagine a pathogenic panspermy, as he had before conceived, a priori, that there was a panspermy of fermentations. That M. Pasteur after having been a sponteparist should reach such a conclusion was natural enough; he was neither physiologist nor physician, but only a chemist without any knowledge of comparative science.”
Pasteur, on the other hand, viewed the germs, such as yeasts involved in the fermentation of sugar to produce alcohol as well as other microbes responsible for putrefaction and the decay of tissues, as outside invaders. He proclaimed that the microbes, isolated from wounds and other degenerative tissues, were the cause of the destruction of the normal tissues, leading to disease. His views ran contrary to the popular notion at the time that microbes were the result of, and not the cause of, disease. Pasteur, along with a minority of other scientists, believed that diseases arose from the activities of these microorganisms, while opponents such as Bechamp and German pathologist Rudolf Virchow, believed that diseases arose from an imbalance in the internal state of the afflicted individual. As noted by Bechamp, just as Pasteur had assumed that there was a specific microbe for each ferment, he did the same by assuming that this must hold true for human and animal diseases as well.
However, there was a bit of a problem for the germ hypothesis as Pasteur was unable to ever observe any germ “infecting” anyone in order to cause disease. The only natural phenomenon that he could observe were the signs and symptoms of disease, and he tried to correlate a tentative relationship between microbes and disease based upon finding microbes in wounds and diseased tissues. As we know, correlation does not equal causation. The fact that microbes are found on the body of a decaying animal does not mean that the microbes caused the animal to die. The microbes occur after the fact in order to perform a necessary function, in this case decomposition. Rather than concluding that the microbes were present in wounds due to the need to heal the injury, Pasteur assumed that the microbes, which he claimed were present all around us within the air, became attracted to the wounds, taking advantage of the weakened state. With this a priori assumption in mind, Pasteur set out to create evidence to support his preconceived idea.
Testing the Germ Hypothesis
Chicken Cholera
While Pasteur had this idea of how diseases were caused by microorganisms as early as the 1860s, he didn't put his hypothesis to the test until the late 1870s. In an 1878 lecture The Germ Theory And Its Applications To Medicine And Surgery read before the French Academy of Sciences on April 29th, 1878, Pasteur had already hypothesized that there was a “virus” (i.e. some form of chemical poison as the word didn't mean an obligate intracellular parasite at that time) in the solutions of the bacterial cultures that he was working with. He then went on to claim that this poison would accumulate within the body of the animal as the bacteria grew. Interestingly, he then noted that his hypothesis presupposes the forming and necessary existence of the bacteria, thus admitting that his hypothesis was not based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
“There is only one possible hypothesis as to the existence of a virus in solution, and that is that such a substance, which was present in our experiment in nonfatal amounts, should be continuously furnished by the vibrio itself, during its growth in the body of the living animal. But it is of little importance since the hypothesis supposes the forming and necessary existence of the vibrio.”
Regardless, Pasteur's attempts to prove his germ hypothesis began later that same year with his study into the fowl disease known as chicken cholera. According to Gerald Geison's The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, in December of 1878, Pasteur was supplied some blood from a diseased chicken by Henri Toussaint, a French veterinarian who claimed to have cultured the responsible bacterium. However, another version states that Toussaint sent the heart of a guinea pig inoculated with the presumed germ of chicken cholera to Pasteur. Whatever the case, Pasteur immediately attempted isolating the microbe in a state of “purity” in order to demonstrate that it was the sole cause of chicken cholera. Upon doing so, he realized that the microbe developed more easily in neutral chicken broth than in the neutral urine that Toussaint utilized as his culture medium. While Pasteur thanked Toussaint, Geison noted that he “left little doubt that he considered Toussaint's work and techniques decidedly inferior to his own.” Pasteur eventually claimed that he could make successive cultures of what he referred to as the “virus” (i.e. poison) always in a state of “purity” in a medium of chicken broth from diseased chickens. He would then use this to inoculate healthy chickens and cause disease.
In his 1880 paper Sur les maladies virulentes et en particulier sur la maladie appelée vulgairement, Pasteur laid out his hypothesis on how he felt that the disease spreads. After unsuccessful attempts to make guinea pigs sick utilizing the cultured “organism,” he assumed that guinea pigs could become “infected” but were essentially “immune” besides the formation of abscesses. He assumed that the pus in abscesses left after injection contained the microbe responsible for the disease in a “pure state.” Pasteur then hypothesized that these pustules would burst open and spill the bacterial contents onto the food of the chicken and rabbits, contaminating them and causing disease.
[snip]
Thus, from Pasteur's first attempt to prove his germ hypothesis:
**
- The experiment did not reflect his hypothesis as to how the disease spreads.
- The agent utilized may have been nothing more than normal coagulated fibrin.
- The route of exposure of feeding chickens diseased muscles and/or injecting the blood of diseased chickens into healthy ones was not a natural exposure route.
- The act of injecting coagulated fibrin into a healthy animal can cause disease.
- The vaccine, used as proof of his success in identifying the causative agent, was ineffective and unsuccessful despite claims stating otherwise.
- Pasteur fabricated the account of how the attenuated vaccine came to be created.
Full article:
I find it interesting that originally, virus meant poison, as I think it is indeed poisons in the body that account for a lot of what biological viruses are purported to do.
I only quoted the part of Mike Stone's article that I believe provided evidence for the assertion that Louis Pasteur didn't follow the scientific method to confirm his germ hypothesis. If you found any errors in his evidence, by all means point it out.
Did you even read what I quoted? Mr. Stone never said that one of Pasteur's flaws was in not seeing biological viruses under a microsope. Instead, he provided a plethora of evidence that Pasteur didn't use the scientific method to confirm the germ hypothesis.
Scott
Verified User
Virology has done a good job of trying to make it impossible to falsify the existence of biological viruses, but the fact of the matter is, there is no solid evidence that any biological viruses were ever discovered, which is what Tom Cowan et all point out in the statement referenced in the opening post of this thread.
Scott
Verified User
Virologists have a unique way of defining the term isolation. This is highlighted in the 2 page statement made by various doctors and other researchers that I quoted from and linked to in the opening post. Quoting from it:
**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. 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, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**
Full statement:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
drsambailey.com
And here you are again, not actually presenting any evidence or science to support your claims. I have already pointed out many errors in Mike Stone's "evidence" and you simply disappear for a couple of months instead of addressing the errors in his evidence and then you reappear and pretend that we are starting all over.
Error number 1 - Whether Pasteur did or didn't use the scientific method doesn't show that viruses don't exist.
Error number 2 - Relying solely on Pasteur completely ignores the 150 years of science since then.
Error number 3 - Viruses are not bacteria. Requiring that viruses follow the same rules as bacteria is a logical fallacy. Humans don't follow the same rules as bacteria so by virtue of this logic, humans don't exist. It is absurd to make such and argument and yet here you are making it.
Standard operating procedure with any conspiracy theory is to find one supposed flaw and then try to use that flaw to tear down the facts while ignoring all other facts.
Another absurd argument from you that attempts to pretend we have not discussed this before.
It is easy to falsify the existence of viruses. You only need to provide a better explanation that includes all the facts. It seems you can't even come up with an explanation that includes 25% of the facts that would point to something other than viruses.
There is solid evidence that viruses exist since we have sequenced their DNA or RNA. There is solid evidence that viruses exist since they have been photographed using electron microscopes. There is solid evidence that viruses exist since vaccines work to stop the spread of diseases caused by viruses. There is solid evidence that viruses exist since disease spread by viruses show that it must be reproducing to spread.
Present your theory of what could be the reason for this evidence if viruses don't exist. I know you will be more likely to disappear for a few months before you come back to quote Mike Stone, Dr Bailey, and the same few sources you always use that ignore all the evidence.
ROFLMAO... The same garbage over and over and over from you.Virologists have a unique way of defining the term isolation. This is highlighted in the 2 page statement made by various doctors and other researchers that I quoted from and linked to in the opening post. Quoting from it:
**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. 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, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
**
Full statement:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
Please provide your evidence that there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology.
The problem is you keep repeating the same argument over and over and never seem to be able to provide any support for why it is true. Since you agree that there is general agreement that viruses have never been isolated, please provide evidence of anyone other than viruses deniers making that claim. I can provide many papers published in scientific journals that claim a virus has been isolated. It would appear the opposite is true since multiple textbooks talk about the 3 ways that can be used to isolate viruses.
Scott
Verified User
What Dr. Tom Cowan et al argue is that no scientific evidence has ever been found for the existence of biological viruses, and they then go explaining what tests -could- be done to try to provide evidence for these alleged biological viruses. Honestly, I think at times it's kind of liking trying to look for unicorns. I mean, yes, I suppose they could exist, but there's never been any solid evidence for their existence, unless we acknowledge that their origins are probably the rhino and the narwhals for the shape of their horns. In other words, the unicorns the way they've been described in many stories never actually existed.
What Dr Tom Cowan is ignoring is 99.9% of the science.
When Dr Tom Cowan refutes one sentence in this science article get back to me... (It shows how to isolate viruses and how to test for them.)
Virus Detection: A Review of the Current and Emerging Molecular and Immunological Methods - PMC
Viruses are ubiquitous in the environment. While many impart no deleterious effects on their hosts, several are major pathogens. This risk of pathogenicity, alongside the fact that many viruses can rapidly mutate highlights the need for suitable, ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Scott
Verified User
Why would no one pay for such a study since if it succeeded it would be world changing and likely result in a Nobel prize?Surely you must recognize that no one would pay for such a study, as it falls the current medical norms. What they -do- do is provide plenty of logical evidence that virology is a scientific field of research. For those who haven't looked at the article, I think the very first point of its 12 point summary is quite good. Quoting:The article and experts never cite a single study to support their claimsA long article on what's wrong with virology. Quite possibly not something anyone here would be interested in reading, but just in case...
The Virus Cult – A Religion Built on Fear, Not Science
40 Q&As on Virology’s Fatal Flawsunbekoming.substack.com
**
**
- The "No Virus" Position Fundamentally Challenges Virology: The No Virus position argues that viruses—as defined in modern medical science—do not exist because they have never been properly isolated according to the scientific method. This goes beyond merely questioning if specific viruses cause particular diseases; it challenges whether the microscopic intracellular parasites called "viruses" have ever been proven to exist at all, potentially rendering the entire field of virology a "house of cards."
I've re-read the discussion that led to your question and come to the conclusion that this whole thing has been framed wrong. The article doesn't cite studies because it's not attempting to prove that biological viruses exist, but that there is no proof that they -do- exist. Here's the introduction to the article linked to and partially quoted in my previous post:
**
The "Yes Virus" narrative is the most important of them all. It matters more to The Regime than even their beloved climate change story.
Why? Because while most people don’t lose sleep over CO₂ levels they do fear viruses. That fear—the belief in invisible and “infectious” enemies lurking everywhere and in everyone—is the ultimate control mechanism. The ring to rule them all.
And yet, it’s a fiction.
Yes, I too can see the pictures of “viral” particles just like everyone else. But there is no evidence that these particles cause the diseases they’ve been accused of causing.
Cause is the real issue, not whether something exists or can be seen, and cause has most definitely not been proven.
I've already reviewed and summarized Mark Gober’s excellent book, The End of Upside Down Medicine, [linked here]. But if you want the most concise, devastating dismantling of the Yes Virus position, look no further than Chapter 2 of that book. It is the best single-source compilation of arguments and scientific challenges to virus theory’s central dogma.
This summary and Q&A are drawn entirely from Chapter 2—with gratitude to Mark Gober.
**
Full article:
The Virus Cult – A Religion Built on Fear, Not Science
40 Q&As on Virology’s Fatal Flaws
unbekoming.substack.com
So your argument is that if you make a circular argument then that circular argument has validity?
They can claim science hasn't proven something by never addressing any of the science that proves something. That is theater of the absurd. You should really be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible.
There is very clear evidence that viruses are the most likely cause for the diseases. The disease spreads by infection which is shown by the way the disease spreads which requires contact with someone/something with the disease. The virus is isolated from infected persons and sequenced. The sequence is shown to occur in the infected people who are tested. The viruses are isolated. Electron micrographs are taken of the viruses and all show the same shape.**
The "Yes Virus" narrative is the most important of them all. It matters more to The Regime than even their beloved climate change story.
Why? Because while most people don’t lose sleep over CO₂ levels they do fear viruses. That fear—the belief in invisible and “infectious” enemies lurking everywhere and in everyone—is the ultimate control mechanism. The ring to rule them all.
And yet, it’s a fiction.
Yes, I too can see the pictures of “viral” particles just like everyone else. But there is no evidence that these particles cause the diseases they’ve been accused of causing.
Cause is the real issue, not whether something exists or can be seen, and cause has most definitely not been proven.
I've already reviewed and summarized Mark Gober’s excellent book, The End of Upside Down Medicine, [linked here]. But if you want the most concise, devastating dismantling of the Yes Virus position, look no further than Chapter 2 of that book. It is the best single-source compilation of arguments and scientific challenges to virus theory’s central dogma.
This summary and Q&A are drawn entirely from Chapter 2—with gratitude to Mark Gober.
**
Full article:
The Virus Cult – A Religion Built on Fear, Not Science
40 Q&As on Virology’s Fatal Flaws
The easiest way to falsify disease caused by virus is to show something is causing the disease that is not a virus. You link does no such thing. It simply claims there is no proof of cause. Once again we are seeing theater of the absurd and you should be ashamed for being so gullible.
That has to be one of the funniest attempts to move goalposts that I have ever seen. You have thrown out the "viruses don't exist" argument to simply claim viruses don't cause disease.
It seems you don't really believe your own arguments.