APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Scott]

I'd say that claiming that the measles virus -does- exist is actually worse than claiming that it doesn't, but the best approach is to do neither. Proving that things exist or don't exist is frequently beyond our capabilities.

Not even close. Sure, we could live in a matrix type of world where everything that we believe exists actually doesn't, and is only some kind of computer projection into our mind, but if you don't believe that biological virus exist, then you are not getting good information.

I'm fine with believing that everything I believe exists. It's just that biological viruses isn't one of the things I believe exists. I'm not saying I have -proof- they don't exist, just as I'm not saying I have proof that unicorns don't exist. I just believe that both possibilities are extremely unlikely.

 

[ZenMode]

No, -you- are back to the "Grand conspiracy thing". I'm just poining out that people tend to believ things with little to no evidence, much as many do with most religions, so long as there are authority figures they trust who say it's true.

Which people are you referring to that are believing things with little to no evidence?

 

[Scott]

The evidence that biological viruses exist far....faaaaaar outweighs the evidence that they don't.

We clearly disagree on that point.

Correct, because you are ignoring the evidence that they do exist in favor of the ramblings of conspiracy theorist.

I could say something similar to you- that you believe biological viruses exist because you're prone to believe authority figures who tell you they exist. We will get nowhere in the discussion, though. To actually move forward in the discussion, we need to look at why we believe the people we believe.

 

[Scott]

I suspect it's more that he thinks that's more likely. I think the fact that he also includes the theory that the polio virus doesn't exist suggests that he think it's -possible- that that theory may be correct. More importantly, -I- think that that theory is correct, and you're debating the issue with me, not him.

Talk about confirmation bias. One can't read his article and possibly come to that conclusion

False, as I reached that conclusion.

One can't read his article and possibly come to that conclusion since he spends 14 parts talking about the virus and then less than one paragraph in part 15 were he mentions it as one of the critiques of his other 14 parts.

I believe in quality, not quantity. I also believe if he was sure the no polio virus theory was incorrect, he would have mentioned that.

 

[Scott]

Not what I said. I'll be a bit more precise this time to try to avoid you misunderstanding me. I found Dan Olmsted's evidence suggesting that polio may have been caused by other factors to be compelling. I don't find his notion that an alleged polio virus may have played a role to be compelling. For those who haven't yet seen Dan Olmstead's article on polio, it can be seen here:

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-age-of-polio-explosion.html

You don't find the entire premise of Dan Olmsted's article to be compelling but you find his evidence to be compelling?

I find the evidence he provided that polio is caused by factors -other- than the alleged polio virus to be compelling.

 

[ZenMode]

I could say something similar to you- that you believe biological viruses exist because you're prone to believe authority figures who tell you they exist.

Correct. If I go to a doctor because of some pain I have and he diagnosis the issue and says "This looks like tendonitis". I'm probably going to believe him because, yes, he is an expert. If I was unsure, and wanted to, I could get a second opinion. If I go to 3 doctors and they all say "You have tendonitis", I'm going to believe them.

How many "opinions" do you you think we have, from experts, that say biological viruses exist?

Now, compare that to how many experts who say they don't exist.

We will get nowhere in the discussion, though. To actually move forward in the discussion, we need to look at why we believe the people we believe.

If you want to have a bigger discussion about how people come to believe the earth is flat, the 2020 election was stolen, the Covid vaccines have microchips, etc... I'm all for it.

 

[Scott]

The entire premise is that the virus exists and that arsenic in sugar from Hawaii made it more virulent.

Dan Olmstead mentioned arsenic 132 times in his article. He mentioned DDT 7 times. He only mentioned "polio virus" 5 times. I don't think you have to be a math wiz to make an educated guess as to which factor he believed to be most important when it came to people getting sick with polio. For anyone in the audience who missed the article in question, it's here:

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-age-of-polio-explosion.html

 

[Scott]

At one point, he references his earlier work with Mark Blaxill that he is building on. That work can be found here and is entitled -

The Age of Polio: How an Old Virus and New Toxins Triggered a Man-Made Epidemic​

The entire premise is based on the polio virus existing. The entire work is based on the polio virus existing. He goes into lengthy detail about how the virus attacks the body. All his "evidence" is based on the polio virus existing.

in 1 or 2 in 100 cases, the virus somehow gets past multiple defenses and into the nervous system, where it finds its way to the anterior horn cells at the top front of the spinal column. There, it preferentially attacks the gray-colored motor neurons (polio means gray in Greek) and causes inflammation of the protective myelin sheath (myelitis). This interferes with nerve signals to the muscles and can lead to temporary or permanent paralysis of the limbs and the respiratory system.

In that article, he mentioned arsenic 42 times, DDT 19 times and "polio virus" twice. However, once I looked up virus alone, I did get 59 times. The bottom line, however, isn't quantity, it's the evidence itself. I've already been persuaded by the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, referenced in the opening post of this thread, that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. I -have- found solid evidence that there are other causes for polio. Therefore, I believe those causes are far more likely than the alleged polio virus.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. However, in this case, Mike Stone didn't say it. I realized it on my own. From what I've read, the first method virologists used to "discover" biological viruses depended on seeing CPE, or the CytoPathic Effect, to be precise. Mike Stone's mentioned it many times and I then remembered that this same method is used in the most recent alleged "discoveries" of biological viruses, such as the Cov 2 virus, alleged to be the cause of Covid 19.

I am curious how you remembered this is the method used to discover the Cov 2 virus since it was not the method used at all.

After looking into things further, it appears you are correct. This isn't because it's a method no longer used, but rather because Fan Wu et al., the discoverers of the alleged Cov 2 virus decided to not use it. For evidence that using CPE in order to "discover" biological viruses is still used to this day, I'll present the evidence that this was the case below, straight from Dr. Mark Bailey & Dr. John Bevan-Smith's article, The Covid-19 Fraud & War on Humanity, below. In the following post, I'll quote Bailey and Bevan-Smith on what Fan Wu et al. did instead.
**
There are four pillars to the worldwide COVID-19 fraud, all of which are interlocking.

THE FIRST PILLAR: ISOLATION

The theory of disease-causing viruses dates back to the 1800s and virologists spent the first half of the 20th century trying to extract these suspected viruses directly from living hosts. The repeated failures led them to change course in the 1950s in order to retain any credibility. The virologists had to provide something to show their potential funders, including the growing pharmaceutical industry chomping at the bit to develop vaccines and anti-microbial drugs.

In 1954, scientists reported that they had evidence of the measles virus based on the observation that a sample from a measles paUent had killed some cells in a test tube.

These appearances are known as “cytopathic effects”.22 The authors admitted that “while there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo [in a human] are the same as those which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances in vitro [in the test tube], the appearance of these phenomena...might be associated with the virus of measles.”23

The appearance of CPEs is foundational to modern virology’s fraudulent claims of isolation and pathogenicity: a sample (e.g., a nose swab) is taken from a patient and mixed with some cells in a test tube, the cells die, and it is declared that a virus has been “isolated”. What virologists don’t want you to know is that the same appearances can be generated without adding purported virus samples to the test tube – in other words, it is the process itself, starvation of the cell and the addition of various toxic substances such as antibiotics and antifungals, that cause the already abnormal cell lines to react and die, no virus required. (Sometimes photographs of “mock” infections are provided, however the details of these experiments are conspicuous by their absence.)

There are, of course, the images of what are claimed to be the virus causing all our problems. However, the colourful 3D images are nothing more than computer generated images representing an artist’s impression.24 They have been used by media around the world to fuel the imaginations of the public that a tiny microbe that looks like a sea mine that could hit then sink them at any time. As for the electron micrograph images put forward in the scientific publications, these simply show nano-particles in and around culture cells as described in the laboratory experiments above. They are alleged to be the SARS-CoV-2 viruses based on arbitrary declarations. By definition, a virus is an infectious particle that can cause a disease in a living host. None of these key properties has been demonstrated in any of the virological experiments describing purported isolation and pathogenesis.

Virologists spent decades attempting this unsuccessfully and instead of admitting there might be a problem with the whole virus theory, they simply changed the meaning of the word. This is a scandalous state of affairs. The world is currently being held to ransom because virologists do not actually isolate viruses, they just say that they do, and appear not to be troubled that the current assault on humanity relies on this self-evident scientific fraud.

The first and foundational fraud is the claim that the virus has been isolated and is the aetiological (causal) agent of COVID-19. Without acceptance of this (always unsubstantiated) claim, the COVID-19 fraud would implode, as would Gates’s “once-in-a-century pandemic”. In other words, the fraud of isolation relies on the violation of accepted meaning to deceive, when, for instance, an “isolate” has no more been isolated than a wishful thought. This sets up a viciously circular discourse from which there is no escape: the premise of existence is established by the lie, and through its absolute insistence, existence of the virus is conclusively and repeatedly “confirmed”. Virology thrives on this insistence, for without it, there is no virus, no virology, no “positive” PCR “tests”, and no more jobs for virologists inventing viruses for Big Pharma to fight with miraculous “vaccines”. That is also why ideas that run counter to this narrative are censored by the government and by the mainstream media, and why this country’s security agencies are terrorising the people they claim to be protecting, enforcing upon them the virological fraud on which the whole charade depends. The entire state apparatus is currently dedicated to this cause.

**

Source:

https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/THE-COVID-19-FRAUD-WAR-ON-HUMANITY_Live-ToCV3.pdf

 

[Scott]

I am curious how you remembered this is the method used to discover the Cov 2 virus since it was not the method used at all.

Alright, now that I've pointed out that while virologists twisted definition of isolation relies heavily on CPE, I'll get into how Fan Wu et al. sidestepped this traditional approach in order to "discover" the alleged Cov 2 virus below, again from Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. John Bevan-Smith's article The Covid-19 Fraud & War on Humanity:
**
Fan Wu et al.[25]

Rather than using the method widely used by virologists for claiming isolation and pathogenicity through inducing CPEs, Fan Wu et al., the first inventors of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, sent the sample extracted from the patient’s lung fluid straight to sequencing for two de novo assembly platforms to search for short genetic fragments or “reads”.26 It is important to note that the samples sent for sequencing were not physically isolated viruses but crude samples containing millions of unique genetic fragments from the patient himself, innumerable microbes, even from the air the patient had breathed on the way to the hospital. Over 56.5 million reads were produced from this genetic “soup” and pieced together to create 384,096 contigs (long genetic sequences) on Megahit, and 1.32 million contigs on Trinity.27 Perhaps with a predisposition to prove their unproven canard that there is “the ongoing ability of viral spill-over from animal to cause severe disease in humans”, Fan Wu et al. chose the longest (30,474 nucleotides), which, they claimed, had a nucleotide identity of 89.1% with the in silico bat coronavirus genome (SL-CoVZC45) invented in 2018.28 Thus, a “genome” that was as close genetically as a human is to an Abyssinian house cat became the template used for primer design for the RT-PCR method to supposedly detect a virus that had not been shown to exist.29 Subsequently, it was decided that the genome needed a cut and paste, perhaps to make it look even closer to the 29,802 nucleotides of the bat model SL-CoVZC45 and it was reduced to 29,875 nucleotides in the next version on GenBank.30 But the artists weren’t finished with their creation and a third and final model was drawn with a completely different terminal sequence featuring 23 consecutive adenine bases, which, hey presto, looked more like the bat model that featured 26 consecutive adenine bases on its tail.31 It is unclear how the virologists knew which “genome” to choose when all of the options were hypothetical computer constructs. It thus quickly becomes apparent that the anti-science of virology and the perversion of the word “isolation” is not only delusional but also highly misleading and no basis for anything, let alone the health and well-being of whole populations.

One year later, Dr Wu Zunyou of the China CDC, in an interview with Janis Mackey-Frayer, would state that isolation had never taken place: “They didn’t isolate the virus”, he said. “That’s the issue [why no data has been shared]. I do not suspect it’s coming from what we originally thought.”32

This foundational fraud was rewarded with grants in 2020 totalling US$900,000 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation made to the two institutions with which 14 of the 19 co-authors of the fraud were affiliated: Fudan University received a grant under INV-006277 “to support the epidemiology study and identify the high risks of COVID-19 infection, which will contribute to national and international public health intervention strategy and product development”, totalling US$300,000; and the China CDC received a grant under INV-005832 “to support emergency response and evaluation, and prepare China for the potential pandemic, which will not only help disease control and containment but contribute China’s experience to global health”,totalling $600,000.33
**

The article then goes on to detail the fraud done by Peng Zhou et al. published in Nature 13 days after Fan Wu et al.'s article. It can be seen here, starting at page 15:

https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/THE-COVID-19-FRAUD-WAR-ON-HUMANITY_Live-ToCV3.pdf

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I find the evidence he provided that polio is caused by factors -other- than the alleged polio virus to be compelling.

He provides no evidence that polio is caused by factors other than a virus. He argues that other factors result in the polio caused by the virus to have worse symptoms.

If you think he says polio is caused by factors other than a polio virus quote his exact words. He says not such thing.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Dan Olmstead mentioned arsenic 132 times in his article. He mentioned DDT 7 times. He only mentioned "polio virus" 5 times. I don't think you have to be a math wiz to make an educated guess as to which factor he believed to be most important when it came to people getting sick with polio. For anyone in the audience who missed the article in question, it's here:

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-age-of-polio-explosion.html

Hmm. Is this you?

I believe in quality, not quantity.

It seems you don't really believe in quality since you now are trying to use quantity by counting words and ignoring their usage.

Counting the number of times he mentions arsenic has nothing to do with the quality of your claim. In fact it completely ignores the fact that the word virus occurs 73 times and at no time does he ever claim that any case could possibly exist without the virus. He makes fun of claims that ice cream causes polio.

This is his argument about arsenic and the virus - Anyone can notice how disingenuous you are by talking about his mentioning "polio virus" while ignoring his actual argument and his actual use of the word virus. While he only uses the word virus once, he actually references the virus three times.

Simple math would then explain why in a group of four children sitting on a park bench, one might develop poliomyelitis while the other three did not. One had the virus and one didn't; one had the arsenic exposure and one didn't; one had neither; one had both. The one who had both was the one at risk.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

After looking into things further, it appears you are correct.

So rather than just admitting you were wrong, you decide to double down and be even more wrong. The rest of your post is bullshit to hide the fact that you were wrong. Yes, I used the word bullshit because what you posted was bullshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In that article, he mentioned arsenic 42 times, DDT 19 times and "polio virus" twice. However, once I looked up virus alone, I did get 59 times. The bottom line, however, isn't quantity, it's the evidence itself. I've already been persuaded by the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement, referenced in the opening post of this thread, that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. I -have- found solid evidence that there are other causes for polio. Therefore, I believe those causes are far more likely than the alleged polio virus.

Once again ...

I believe in quality, not quantity.

Clearly you are relying on quantity instead of quality since you only counted the words and didn't look at the substance. You certainly have provided no quality. But let's stick to quality from here on out.

In order to rely solely on quality let's get to what the scientific method is. Here it is for the third/fourth time that you have ignored it.


At this point, you have ignored the scientific method twice when I introduced it so I will bring it up again.

Let's examine the scientific method.
The scientific method is this -

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-507-w.pdf

State the problem
Form a hypothesis
Observe and Experiment
Interpret Data
Draw Conclusions
(Revise the hypothesis as needed and repeat)

Do you agree that this is the scientific method?
Do you agree that something that fails to use this method is conducting pseudoscience?

Until you are willing to actually look at and discuss the scientific method we can't move forward with anything since it is required to address your claims of pseudoscience.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, -you- are back to the "Grand conspiracy thing". I'm just poining out that people tend to believe things with little to no evidence, much as many do with most religions, so long as there are authority figures they trust who say it's true.

Yep. You have decided that Mike Stone and Sam Bailey are authority figures and you believe them with little to no evidence.

So let's start to apply critical thinking instead of authority figures.
The scientific method is this -

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-507-w.pdf

State the problem
Form a hypothesis
Observe and Experiment
Interpret Data
Draw Conclusions
(Revise the hypothesis as needed and repeat)

Do you agree that this is the scientific method?
Do you agree that something that fails to use this method is conducting pseudoscience?

 

[ZenMode]

He provides no evidence that polio is caused by factors other than a virus. He argues that other factors result in the polio caused by the virus to have worse symptoms.

If you think he says polio is caused by factors other than a polio virus quote his exact words. He says not such thing.

The funny thing is @Scott has no idea what causes measles, chicken pox or polio, but he's sure that the entirety of the world, except him and a couple other people, know it's not a virus.

Oh, they also know that the vaccines that were developed to prevent polio, chicken pox and the measles just happened to decrease cases by chance, not because the medical world knows exactly how vaccines work.

 

[Scott]

Mark Bailey wrote a 67 page essay detailing why virology is pseudoscience, and he used the "discovery" of the alleged Cov 2 virus as an example of how this pseudoscience works. I've shown it to you in the past, but for those who haven't seen it, his essay can be seen here:

https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-FAREWELL-TO-VIROLOGY-Expert-Edition-V1.2.pdf

Mark Bailey spent 67 pages spouting logical fallacies and pushing pseudoscience.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion. I personally found his prose to be quite good.

Your link is wrong.

No, it wasn't.

Mark Stone is not Mark Bailey

True. Who is Mark Stone?

 

[Scott]

The main issue here is that neither I, nor anyone else I've cited, has asserted that DDT is the -sole- cause of polio. As a matter of fact, people I've cited have only asserted that it looks like DDT may be -a- cause of polio.

If you or no one else has ever brought up DDT as a cause of polio then what in the hell are you even bringing it up for?

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to properly absorb what I say. I even highlighted the crucial word above, but alas, you seemed to have missed it anyway. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word? Alright, here we go:
sole:
1a: being the only one

Source:

Definition of SOLE

being the only one; having no sharer; functioning independently and without assistance or interference… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Now, with the definition out of the way, what do you think the following sentence means?
**
The main issue here is that neither I, nor anyone else I've cited, has asserted that DDT is the -sole- cause of polio.
**

Take your time.

 

[Scott]

Dan Olmstead has never once said that DDT may be the cause of polio.

Partial points. He said that it could be a contributing factor. I also suspect that his views changed as he was nearing the end of his life, as he appears to be more open to the possibility that no virus was involved in the "explosion" article. I myself am saying that DDT may be -1- of the causes of polio. In any case, here's what Dan Olmstead said about DDT's role in polio:
**
When DDT replaced lead arsenate after World War II, a handful of brave souls put forward the idea that pesticides, not the poliovirus, were the cause.

As Mark and I wrote in 2011:

--

In 1949 Drs. Morton S. Biskind and Irving Bieber published “DDT Poisoning – A New Symptom With Neuropsychiatric Manifestations” in the American Journal of Psychotherapy. “By far the most disturbing of all the manifestations are the subjective reactions and the extreme muscular weakness,” they reported.

In subsequent papers and testimony, Biskind linked DDT directly to cases of poliomyelitis – including a Dec. 12, 1950, statement to the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products, United States House of Representatives. He quoted another doctor that “wherever DDT had been used intensively against polio, not only was there an epidemic of the syndrome I have described but the incidence of polio continued to rise and in fact appeared where it had not been before.

“This is not surprising since it is known that not only can DDT poisoning produce a condition that may easily be mistaken for polio in an epidemic but also being a nerve poison itself, may damage cells in the spinal cord and thus increase the susceptibility to the virus.”

“Facts are stubborn,” Biskind concluded, “and refusal to accept them does not avoid their inexorable effects -- the tragic consequences are now upon us.”

The theory was also advanced by Ralph R. Scobey, who in 1952 gave a statement to the same House committee. Titled “The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis and Obstructions To Its Investigation,” it described associations between harvest seasons, fresh fruit consumption, and polio epidemics.

The next year, Biskind made the link even more explicit: “In the United States the incidence of polio had been increasing prior to 1945 at a fairly constant rate, but its epidemiologic characteristics remained unchanged. Beginning in 1946 the rate of increase more than doubled.” Yet far from looking into a toxic etiology, he said, “virtually the entire apparatus of communication, lay and scientific alike, has been devoted to denying, concealing, suppressing, distorting and attempts to convert into its opposite, the overwhelming evidence. Libel, slander and economic boycott have not been overlooked in this campaign.”

--

More recently, medical writer Jim West has argued strongly for the link, and pointed to other risks from pesticides, like Parkinson’s Disease. In articles like, “Everything You Think You Know About Polio is Wrong,” he champions Biskind and the poison theory of polio.

“Today, few remember this poignant writer who struggled with the issues of pesticides, issues that Rachel Carson would be allowed to politely bring to public awareness nine years later, as the lead story in The New Yorker magazine and then as a national best seller, by limiting her focus to the environment and wildlife. Biskind had the audacity to write about human damage.”
**

Source:

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/11/the-age-of-polio-explosion.html

Now, I will grant you that, immediately after those paragraphs, Dan Olmstead wrote the following:
**
Under our theory, that's true, but it's half the equation; the poliovirus is required as well to add up to poliomyelitis epidemics. And the implications reach far beyond polio: Toxins can amplify minor microbes into major epidemics to a far greater extent than is currently recognized.
**

So, at least in this article, Dan Olmstead was convinced that the polio virus was not only real, but was required to set off polio, just that it was only "half the equation" as he put it. However, he's also pointing out that there are others who don't believe that a virus need to be involved at all.

 

[Scott]

By all means, attempt to provide solid evidence that any parasite alleged to be a biological virus actually replicates "within a host cell".

This has been done repeatedly and you simply refuse to look at the evidence.

I think what you tend to mean when you say this that I refuse to go looking for -your- evidence in 20+ papers you've linked to. However, I -think- we may have been making some progress on you actually quoting more of what you think is evidence.