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:
Scott
Verified User
Link to support this?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. Perhaps this is why most vaccinated individuals are presumed “immune” to measles and testing is saved for the unvaccinated? Regardless, the CDC acknowledges that even if a measles case is seen at a physician’s office, it is most likely not a “true” measles case even if it meets the clinical definition. [snip]
**
Source:
Evidence is in the same article. I'll quote said evidence:
**
The reason why the CDC must alert healthcare workers when and how to look for measles cases is because healthcare workers do not actively look for measles cases nor would they know what one looks like if one walked into the office. Plus, just as the CDC assumes that those who are vaccinated are “protected” and cannot possibly have measles, the physicians assume the same as well. This is called evidence of presumptive “immunity.” All that one needs in order to be presumed “immune” to measles, according to the CDC, is one of the following: documentation of vaccination, laboratory evidence of “immunity,” laboratory “confirmation” of measles, or being born before 1957:
Evidence of immunity
"Acceptable presumptive evidence of immunity against measles includes at least one of the following:
- written documentation of adequate vaccination:
- one or more doses of a measles-containing vaccine administered on or after the first birthday for preschool-age children and adults not at high risk
- two doses of measles-containing vaccine for school-age children and adults at high risk, including college students, healthcare personnel, and international travelers
- laboratory evidence of immunity*
- laboratory confirmation of measles
- birth before 1957
Healthcare providers and health departments should not accept verbal reports of vaccination without written documentation as presumptive evidence of immunity."
**
Source:
I clicked on the cdc link- apparently, it no longer works, but if you give it a bit, it goes to the new cdc page on measles, which is here:
Clinical Overview of Measles
Learn about clinical diagnosing and treating measles cases.
www.cdc.gov
The new cdc page doesn't say the same thing, which stands to reason, as it was updated in May 2025 and Mike Stone's article was from February 2024. I did find the exact quote above using the way back machine though, starting with "evidence of immunity" and ending with "presumptive evidence of immunity". It can be seen here:
Healthcare Professionals: Clinical Resources
Learn how to prevent, diagnose, and treat patients for Measles.
web.archive.org
Last edited:
Scott
Verified User
Wrong. The outbreak in Southern Texas was spread among a small community of Americans.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. Perhaps this is why most vaccinated individuals are presumed “immune” to measles and testing is saved for the unvaccinated? Regardless, the CDC acknowledges that even if a measles case is seen at a physician’s office, it is most likely not a “true” measles case even if it meets the clinical definition. The only reason to suspect measles is if the person is unvaccinated and came into contact with traveler's from abroad. [snip]
**
Source:
Again, Mike Stone's article was from February 2024. Is this alleged outbreak from after that point? My point is that the CDC may have changed its policy after that date.
Scott
Verified User
Obviously since the Measles VIRUS is highly contagious.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. Perhaps this is why most vaccinated individuals are presumed “immune” to measles and testing is saved for the unvaccinated? Regardless, the CDC acknowledges that even if a measles case is seen at a physician’s office, it is most likely not a “true” measles case even if it meets the clinical definition. The only reason to suspect measles is if the person is unvaccinated and came into contact with traveler's from abroad. Granted, the CDC does say that cases of “high suspicion” should be investigated. [snip]
**
Source:
As I imagine you know, the signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" and I don't share your belief that there is any solid evidence that measles virus actually exists.
Scott
Verified User
Again, this is very simple - in order to be sure, a test is needed.... per the CDC: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. Perhaps this is why most vaccinated individuals are presumed “immune” to measles and testing is saved for the unvaccinated? Regardless, the CDC acknowledges that even if a measles case is seen at a physician’s office, it is most likely not a “true” measles case even if it meets the clinical definition. The only reason to suspect measles is if the person is unvaccinated and came into contact with traveler's from abroad. Granted, the CDC does say that cases of “high suspicion” should be investigated. However, this is only if other causes have been ruled out first, such as parvovirus, dengue, Kawasaki disease, scarlet fever, and rubella.
“In the measles post-elimination era, most cases of febrile rash illness seen in physician’s offices that meet the clinical case definition will not be measles. However, health care providers should maintain a high index of suspicion for measles in clinically compatible cases especially among unvaccinated persons and among persons who recently traveled abroad or who have had contact with persons such as travelers or international visitors. In addition, not every sporadic measles case is linked to a known importation, so cases that raise high suspicion of measles, irrespective of associated risk factors, should be investigated for measles unless an alternative diagnosis is likely (e.g., known epidemiological link to a parvovirus case).It is important to consider measles in the differential diagnoses of parvovirus, dengue, Kawasaki disease, and scarlet fever. In addition, when evaluating patients with suspected measles who have negative tests for acute measles infection, additional testing for rubella can be considered."
The list of potential diagnoses for the same symptoms of disease is much longer than what the CDC provided. Going back to the MN Department of Health, a more comprehensive list of diseases, both “infectious” and “non-infectious,” presenting with measles-like symptoms is outlined. As these diseases all have similar features to measles, they all must be ruled out before a measles diagnosis can be made and “confirmed:”
“Providers should also consider other infectious and non-infectious etiologies that may cause fever and generalized rash, including:As can be seen from the above information, we are left with quite a few preconditions that must be satisfied in order for a new measles outbreak to be declared.
- Rubella, Scarlet fever, Roseola infantum, Kawasaki disease, Erythema infectiosum (Fifth Disease), Coxsackievirus, Echovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, Pharyngoconjunctival fever, Influenza
- Dengue, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Zika virus
- Dermatologic manifestations of Viral hemorrhagic fevers
- Toxic Shock Syndrome, cutaneous syphilis
- Drug reactions (e.g., antibiotics, contact dermatitis)
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. All they need is to alert clinicians in order to have them identify anyone unvaccinated who presents with nonspecific symptoms, such as a fever and a rash, that may have recently been a traveler or been in contact with one. They can then use unreliable laboratory tests to “confirm” that the case is measles rather than any of the other identical conditions it would have been pegged as prior to the alert. If someone who is vaccinated slips through as a suspected case, they make it difficult to confirm them as a measles case by blaming the unreliable tests and the vaccinated status and/or the presumed “immunity.” Thus, a measles outbreak can be steered away from the vaccinated and pinned on any unvaccinated individual when they would have normally been diagnosed with any of the other conditions presenting with a fever, a maculopapular rash, and nonspecific symptoms of disease. Voila! The CDC gets to declare a measles “outbreak” in the unvaccinated instigated from contact coming outside from an “endemic” country. Now that the curtain has pulled back, and the trick has been exposed, it is time to cancel this magic show once and for all.
- The CDC must issue an alert for healthcare workers to start looking for measles cases.
- Testing should be limited to those who meet the case definition and are unvaccinated, have a recent history of travel abroad, and are without an alternate explanation for symptoms.
- Those with a history of previous measles “infection” or vaccination should be presumed to be “immune.”
- Many clinicians do not know what a measles case looks like, so clinical diagnosis is unreliable, and it must be “confirmed” via unreliable tests.
- The long list of similar diseases presenting with the same symptoms must be ruled out via differential diagnosis first before “confirming” a measles case.
- A suspected measles case in someone vaccinated must meet the clinical case definition and be linked to a laboratory case in order to be a “confirmed” case.
**
Source:
I know, a lot of those other alleged "causes" are also biological viruses, but not all of them.
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
The problem with those tests is that there's no solid evidence that any RNA comes from an actual virus with the properties that the alleged measles virus has. This is all explained in the opening post of this thread. To whit:
**
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.
**
Source:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
drsambailey.com
Scott
Verified User
Agreed, but let's get back to where this started. You asserted that Dan Olmstead provided "no evidence that polio is caused by factors other than a virus". I pointed out solid evidence that he does and that said evidence is in the title of one of his articles. Again, here's the article in question:
The Age of Polio: How an Old Virus and New Toxins Triggered a Man-Made Epidemic
ZenMode
Well-known member
Okay. I was reading the original article differently. The author intentionally puts quotation marks around things, which generally means that the word in quotes is almost meant to be tongue in cheek... Not serious.Evidence is in the same article. I'll quote said evidence:
**
The reason why the CDC must alert healthcare workers when and how to look for measles cases is because healthcare workers do not actively look for measles cases nor would they know what one looks like if one walked into the office. Plus, just as the CDC assumes that those who are vaccinated are “protected” and cannot possibly have measles, the physicians assume the same as well. This is called evidence of presumptive “immunity.” All that one needs in order to be presumed “immune” to measles, according to the CDC, is one of the following: documentation of vaccination, laboratory evidence of “immunity,” laboratory “confirmation” of measles, or being born before 1957:
Evidence of immunity
"Acceptable presumptive evidence of immunity against measles includes at least one of the following:
- written documentation of adequate vaccination:
- one or more doses of a measles-containing vaccine administered on or after the first birthday for preschool-age children and adults not at high risk
- two doses of measles-containing vaccine for school-age children and adults at high risk, including college students, healthcare personnel, and international travelers
- laboratory evidence of immunity*
- laboratory confirmation of measles
- birth before 1957
Healthcare providers and health departments should not accept verbal reports of vaccination without written documentation as presumptive evidence of immunity."
**
Source:
I clicked on the cdc link- apparently, it no longer works, but if you give it a bit, it goes to the new cdc page on measles, which is here:
Clinical Overview of Measles
Learn about clinical diagnosing and treating measles cases.
The new cdc page doesn't say the same thing, which stands to reason, as it was updated in May 2025 and Mike Stone's article was from February 2024. I did find the exact quote above using the way back machine though, starting with "evidence of immunity" and ending with "presumptive evidence of immunity". It can be seen here:
Healthcare Professionals: Clinical Resources
Learn how to prevent, diagnose, and treat patients for Measles.
So, yes, it makes sense that doctors do not actively look for measles cases. In many years, there are less than 100 and 50 across the whole country.
Given the high percentage of children that receive the MMR vaccine, we should expect to see very few cases. And yes, cases are very rare, so we definitely would want to have the doctors verify a case of measles with a laboratory test. We don't want a doctor sounding the measles alarm without a lab test.
Cases of measles are rare because the vaccine that was developed works very well. Unlike COVID, which had a new variant every month, it seem like, measles only have four variants and the vaccine is effective against all four of them.
Though, for you, everything I said is a bunch of Hocus pocus anyway, right? The millions of cases of measles per year, before the vaccine, never actually happened the vaccine is just some elaborate placebo and the drop in cases since the vaccine is all just smoke and mirrors... Part of a grand, decades long conspiracy.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
The PDF you linked is pretty much just regurgitating what Mike Stone says and is just an attempt at creating doubt. It's a common move by conspiracy theorists.
The PDF mentions Sars Cov-2 which, according to you doesn't exist.
I've said a few times that carrying on the lie of virus existence, as has been the case for decades, would require a grand, worldwide conspiracy among thousands of people. You say no.
In regard to COVID, I'd like to know how a grand conspiracy didn't exist.
Over a weekend, multiple independent and generally competing, companies, around the world, all did their own independent analysis of the Covid virus and developed a COVID vaccine. They all performed clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people to test the effectiveness of the vaccine and all had data on the results. Multiple independent, and often competing, companies developed and tested products to test individuals for Covid. Case and mortality data was collected from hundreds of thousands of medical entities and reported around the world. Governments around the world tracked that data and made decisions on restrictions/lockdowns.
So, explain how all of the independent medical and government entities made this happen just by chance, with no coordination.
For example, how did the people conducting the clinical trials and collecting data all just happen to get on the same page? They all had to fake data, but all did it on their own initiative ?