ZenMode
Well-known member
You agree while not considering what would have to actually be the case for the world to be duped.
You also haven't told us who is behind this grand conspiracy to fool the world.
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
You also haven't told us who is behind this grand conspiracy to fool the world.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Scott
Verified User
The time to bring up beliefs of this nature is when you're replying to the post or posts where you believe I made the false claims. Otherwise, all you have are unsubstantiated assertions.
Scott
Verified User
Why should I reinvent the wheel? I believe that Mike Stone's article getting into measles is quite good. If you haven't already seen it, it's here:
If you find any flaws in his reasoning, by all means, elaborate in your response.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Nope. I actually read (or at least read initially) the articles you post. Neither said what you claimed they did and one (Dr. Battacharya) actually said the opposite of your entire claim about viruses.
ZenMode
Well-known member
What is that article supposed to convey to the reader? You're claiming that biological viruses don't exist and the article you post goes into significant detail about the measles virus, outbreaks, testing, CDC activities related to measles....with NEVER saying it doesn't exist.Why should I reinvent the wheel? I believe that Mike Stone's article getting into measles is quite good. If you haven't already seen it, it's here:
If you find any flaws in his reasoning, by all means, elaborate in your response.
In fact, it seems to say the opposite.
Scott
Verified User
You may find the following interesting:
**
[snip]
With these preconditions firmly established, it is easy to see how the CDC can manufacture and steer a measles outbreak so that it appears as if it was instigated from outside of the US and spread through the unvaccinated.
[snip]
Source:
I will say, I find it interesting because the part I highlighted shows how your sources rely not on science and facts but instead on innuendo and false claims.
You've presented no evidence that what you highlighted relies on "innuendo and false claims". What's truly sad is that you snipped out all the preconditions that I quoted. If you think the above claim is false, you would first need to provide evidence that the preconditions were flawed. You didn't even quote them, let alone address them.
Scott
Verified User
First of all, no, I'm someone who believes there's no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. As is clear from the opening post of this thread, I'm certainly not alone in this belief. The signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" played a large role in persuading me of my views here. Saying that someone is a denier of anything strongly suggests that what they are denying is actually true. It's a silly word game meant to score political points, not foster an actual debate.
Secondly, I strongly disagree with your notion that people who believe that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses has the "same mentality" as people who believe that the earth is flat. There is plenty of solid evidence that the earth is spherical.
Scott
Verified User
What factual information do you believe I'm ignoring?
Scott
Verified User
You may find the following interesting:
**
The CDC admits that it is difficult to diagnose any vaccinated person with measles due to the unreliability of the tests. [snip]
**
Source:
That is not what they say. They say it's difficult to diagnose without a test because the visible symptoms are similar to other infections:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that measles can be difficult to diagnose due to symptoms overlapping with other illnesses, such as other viral infections, and the possibility of vaccine reactions mimicking the disease. A doctor may suspect measles if a patient has a fever, cough, runny nose, and conjunctivitis, along with a characteristic rash. However, definitive diagnosis requires a laboratory test to detect measles RNA or measles-specific IgM antibodies in a patient's blood or a respiratory or urine specimen
You're certainly correct that the CDC doesn't make that statement. Mike Stone was essentially reading between the lines. I would like to point out that, in the interests of not being -too- long in my quote of Mike Stone's article, I started said quote with that statement from Mr. Stone without going into how he had come to that conclusion. Because you bring it up, I think it's now time that I get into what Mr. Stone said -before- that statement, and will finish with said statement as a conclusion rather than an introduction:
**
Regarding serology tests, the CDC states that no single serology test can confirm with 100% confidence every “true” measles case. False positive results are common in those with measles-like disease as well as false negative results in those previously vaccinated. Recently vaccinated individuals may come down with a measles-like disease which means that an IgM serology test cannot be relied upon for some strange reason in order to diagnose whether or not it is measles. The only way for a recently vaccinated person to become a “confirmed” measles case when they experience measles-like disease is to meet the clinical case definition and also be linked to someone else who was a laboratory “confirmed” measles case.
"There is no single serologic laboratory test capable of confirming with 100% confidence every true case of measles."
"Testing for measles-specific IgM from persons with rash and fever can produce false positive IgM results. As discussed above, false negative results can also occur in a previously vaccinated person."
"The occurrence of measles-like illness in recently vaccinated persons can pose particular difficulties. Fever and rash are known to occur 6–12 days post-vaccination in a small percent of vaccinated persons.[1] A positive measles IgM test cannot be used to confirm the diagnosis of measles in persons with measles-like illness who received measles vaccine 6–45 days before onset of rash due to the measles IgM antibody response to the vaccine. Specimens for viral isolation should be obtained in addition to serologic testing (see “Laboratory Testing” section above); isolation of wild type measles virus would allow confirmation of the case. In the absence of strain typing to confirm wild type infection, cases in persons with measles-like illness who received measles vaccine 6–45 days before onset of rash should be classified as confirmed cases only if a) they meet the clinical case definition and b) they are epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case."
The CDC admits that it is difficult to diagnose any vaccinated person with measles due to the unreliability of the tests.
**
Source:
No preconditions were firmly established. The preconditions falsely claimed that the only way to diagnose measles was to rule out everything else. That is false since a measles diagnosis is confirmed through lab tests. Almost all medical diagnosis narrow down the cause by ruling out other causes. A bad swollen ankle rules out a broken bone by taking an x-ray.
Since you think it isn't innuendo provide your evidence that the CDC has ever manufactured or steered a measles outbreak so it appears to have been instigated from the outside or spread through the unvaccinated. (See example below to explain the fallacy in that statement by Mike Stone.)
Claiming that someone can do something is by innuendo implying that they will do it.
Let's demonstrate your logic and how it is nothing but innuendo.
Mike Stone is a male.
The majority of rapists are male.
With these preconditions firmly established, it is easy to see how Mike Stone could be a rapist. (Poisoning the well fallacy)
He doesn't have to believe you are ignoring anything. It is a fact that clearly exists for all to see. You have repeatedly shown us you are ignoring evidence by your refusal to read anything that shows viruses exist and have been isolated.
You ignore that viruses have been isolated when you refuse to read any of the 20 papers I linked to.
You ignore that a measles diagnosis is made through lab tests and not just observations.
You ignore that viruses are not bacteria.
You ignore that your sources use logical fallacies and cherry picking.
Clear evidence you that you ignore factual information -
Scott: - As to your papers, I'm not going to read any of them at this time,
ZenMode
Well-known member
Is Mike Stone reading between the lines because it certainly seems like everything he's saying reinforces that measles is a real thing. Among many other specific measles events/details, he talks about the difficulties in testing, but you can't have difficulties in testing if there's nothing to test.You're certainly correct that the CDC doesn't make that statement. Mike Stone was essentially reading between the lines. I would like to point out that, in the interests of not being -too- long in my quote of Mike Stone's article, I started said quote with that statement from Mr. Stone without going into how he had come to that conclusion. Because you bring it up, I think it's now time that I get into what Mr. Stone said -before- that statement, and will finish with said statement as a conclusion rather than an introduction:
**
Regarding serology tests, the CDC states that no single serology test can confirm with 100% confidence every “true” measles case. False positive results are common in those with measles-like disease as well as false negative results in those previously vaccinated. Recently vaccinated individuals may come down with a measles-like disease which means that an IgM serology test cannot be relied upon for some strange reason in order to diagnose whether or not it is measles. The only way for a recently vaccinated person to become a “confirmed” measles case when they experience measles-like disease is to meet the clinical case definition and also be linked to someone else who was a laboratory “confirmed” measles case.
"There is no single serologic laboratory test capable of confirming with 100% confidence every true case of measles.""Testing for measles-specific IgM from persons with rash and fever can produce false positive IgM results. As discussed above, false negative results can also occur in a previously vaccinated person.""The occurrence of measles-like illness in recently vaccinated persons can pose particular difficulties. Fever and rash are known to occur 6–12 days post-vaccination in a small percent of vaccinated persons.[1] A positive measles IgM test cannot be used to confirm the diagnosis of measles in persons with measles-like illness who received measles vaccine 6–45 days before onset of rash due to the measles IgM antibody response to the vaccine. Specimens for viral isolation should be obtained in addition to serologic testing (see “Laboratory Testing” section above); isolation of wild type measles virus would allow confirmation of the case. In the absence of strain typing to confirm wild type infection, cases in persons with measles-like illness who received measles vaccine 6–45 days before onset of rash should be classified as confirmed cases only if a) they meet the clinical case definition and b) they are epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case."
The CDC admits that it is difficult to diagnose any vaccinated person with measles due to the unreliability of the tests.
**
Source: