Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Phoenyx]

For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

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

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:

**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

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.

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.
**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.

[Phoenyx]

No one is arguing that viruses cause all illnesses. Why are you attempting to introduce a straw man argument?

You're the one introducing a straw man argument. I said that everyone agrees that many diseases aren't caused by viruses. I assumed that you would agree with this as well, and it's clear that you do.

I didn't introduce an argument that you didn't make and then argue against it.

You're right, you didn't introduce a straw man argument, but you -did- accuse me of doing so. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

There is a bit of debate as to how much bacterias cause illnesses, as evidenced by the germ vs. terrain theory. However, everyone [that I know of] agrees that bacteria exist. The same can't be said for viruses.

Arumentum ad ignoratiam. Because some people don't believe viruses exist is not evidence they don't exist.

Well, we could argue about the definition of evidence, but I -think- we can agree that belief by itself is not enough in this case, because we clearly have different beliefs as to the existence of viruses. Thus, we must turn to evidence.

Many of those illnesses not caused by those listed above are caused by viruses.

That is what you have failed to prove.

So your ignorance is proof of what?

Non sequitur. Your assertion is that certain illnesses are caused by viruses. In any decent debate, it falls on the one making the assertion to provide evidence, if not proof, for their assertion(s).

Yes. The issue is what causes it.

A starting point of agreement. Smallpox exists with specific symptoms and ways it is transferred.

Half right. We agree that it exists, not on how people acquire it.

Can smallpox be transmitted from one person to another?

I don't believe so.

So how do you think smallpox is transmitted?

I suspect it's the bodies reaction to certain toxins.

Explain how when a person with it travels to a new place smallpox also travels and infects people at the new place.

You haven't provided evidence that smallpox can be acquired in this way.

Explain how items that have been handled by someone with smallpox can then infect others.

Again, you haven't provided evidence that smallpox can be acquired in this way.

There is some debate that they can, certainly if someone exposed to toxins exhales them. There are also some concerns of the blood of those who have gotten covid vaccines:

Should all blood donations from Covid-vaccinated people be BANNED from use until research PROVES them safe? | vaccinedeaths.com

Furthermore, people who are near each other tend to be exposed to the same toxins.

Let's start to look at the problems with your argument when it comes to smallpox. If one person inhales a toxin, then they can't exhale more than they initially inhaled. That means when they are no longer near the initial exposure they can't produce any of the toxin so that each time they exhale they exhale less of the toxin.

That does sound reasonable.

Yet, exposure to someone that first came down with smallpox miles away can transmit the smallpox to someone that has been locked in a room that has no way for toxins to enter.

Do you have evidence of this?

How did this supposed toxin get from Europe to the Americas? How are you suggesting that the toxin is produced that it can multiply and travel if it is not biological in nature?

I've never suggested that toxins can multiply. As to toxins going from Europe to the Americas, toxins can be carried on boats just like any living organism, and I see no reason why any toxins produced in Europe couldn't also be produced in another continent with the right equipment. I'm not talking about equipment to make toxins per se, but rather equipment to make coal plants and all the other forms of toxins that are in our environment today, not for the sake of making them, but as by products of our industry.

For starters, you haven't proven that smallpox is spread by contact with others.

So, now you are going to just deny the symptoms and transfer of disease

Don't confuse symptoms of a disease with its means of acquisition.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're right, you didn't introduce a straw man argument, but you -did- accuse me of doing so. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

You haven't even proven that viruses exist. Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses. If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.

So let's examine your argument there. The first part in blue is you making an argument I have never made. I have never argued that all diseases are caused by viruses. The part in red is you arguing against the first part. That is a classic example of a straw man fallacy. But it includes another fallacy as well when your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise. The fact that some disease is caused by bacteria doesn't prove that viruses do or do not exist. All your statement proves is that you can't make a logical argument without resorting to fallacies.

Well, we could argue about the definition of evidence, but I -think- we can agree that belief by itself is not enough in this case, because we clearly have different beliefs as to the existence of viruses. Thus, we must turn to evidence.

OK. Provide your evidence that viruses don't exist. I won't hold my breath. I will do another post that lists all the reasons why they likely exist. Then we can compare the preponderance of evidence. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they can never provide evidence in support of their theory, they rely on holes in the accepted theory to prove their theory is correct. That is a logical fallacy.

Non sequitur. Your assertion is that certain illnesses are caused by viruses. In any decent debate, it falls on the one making the assertion to provide evidence, if not proof, for their assertion(s).

So we are still waiting for any actual evidence you have of viruses not existing. You have not explained away much of the evidence that they do exist. I will be posting that evidence and we will see if you can refute even half of it.

Half right. We agree that it exists, not on how people acquire it.

So the observed ways it is acquired are not actually observed? Do people acquire smallpox if they have not been in contact with any infected people or items from infected people? Provide evidence to support your claim if you are going to say people can spontaneously get it from an environment that is not known to have had infections prior.

I suspect it's the bodies reaction to certain toxins.

Therein lies your problem. You have not told us how and where those toxins come from. Toxins do not occur spontaneously. They must have a source. They result in localized poisoning. If the poison spreads it must follow a pattern that is easy to spot because water and air act a certain way. The poison would also lose toxicity the farther it gets from the source.

You haven't provided evidence that smallpox can be acquired in this way.

Again, you haven't provided evidence that smallpox can be acquired in this way.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/transmission/index.html
They spread the virus when they coughed or sneezed and droplets from their nose or mouth spread to other people.
[snip]
These scabs and the fluid found in the patient’s sores also contained the variola virus. The virus can spread through these materials or through the objects contaminated by them, such as bedding or clothing.
Do you have evidence that smallpox doesn't spread this way? This is the way it has spread for centuries without variation. Sick people have infected others.

That does sound reasonable.

So explain how this toxin multiples to infect millions if it is reduced in efficacy every time it infects a new person?

Do you have evidence of this?

https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Doc...s/Smallpox.pdf

I've never suggested that toxins can multiply. As to toxins going from Europe to the Americas, toxins can be carried on boats just like any living organism, and I see no reason why any toxins produced in Europe couldn't also be produced in another continent with the right equipment. I'm not talking about equipment to make toxins per se, but rather equipment to make coal plants and all the other forms of toxins that are in our environment today, not for the sake of making them, but as by products of our industry.

But you have suggested that toxins can infect millions of people spread around the world. Toxins don't multiply. Yes, they can be created by biological or manufacturing sources. But when they are produced, they are localized and are only in large enough ppm to be toxic near the source. As they spread out they are reduced in volume and by the very nature of being toxin they are less toxic in lower quantities. If the toxin was created by equipment to make coal plants then the toxin would only cause sickness in the vicinity were coal plants were being built. That isn't the way Covid or the flu spread. It was not around specific equipment. It was not around a specific area.

Don't confuse symptoms of its disease with its means of acquisition.

I didn't. I said you are going to deny 2 things. But a nice attempt at deflection by pretending I was the one confused. And as we see, you did just what I said you would do. You demanded evidence of how it is acquired and you denied symptoms when you claimed it was a body's reaction to toxins.

[archives]

“Sam Bailey on isolating viruses, and why she is wrong.”
https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2...-she-is-wrong/

”Doctor who posted controversial Covid videos loses fight to stop Medical Council investigation“.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/doctor...OPQMOLADVRMQM/

“New Zealand doctor makes misleading claims about the country’s PCR testing regime in widely shared YouTube video.”
https://factcheck.afp.com/new-zealan...shared-youtube

“Will the ‘Virus Sceptics’ Ever Accept the Evidence That Proves Them Wrong?”
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/18/...es-them-wrong/

NEXT

[Phoenyx]

You're right, you didn't introduce a straw man argument, but you -did- accuse me of doing so. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

You haven't even proven that viruses exist. Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses. If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.

So let's examine your argument there. The first part in blue is you making an argument I have never made. I have never argued that all diseases are caused by viruses.

I never claimed that you'd made that argument. I was trying to establish a baseline, something we could both agree on.

The part in red is you arguing against the first part. That is a classic example of a straw man fallacy.

It'd only apply as a strawman argument if I'd claimed that you disagreed with what I'd said in blue.

But it includes another fallacy as well when your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise. The fact that some disease is caused by bacteria doesn't prove that viruses do or do not exist.

Now you are definitely making a strawman argument. I never claimed that that just because some diseases are allegedly caused by bacteria means that viruses don't exist. Will get to the rest of your post later.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I never claimed that you'd made that argument. I was trying to establish a baseline, something we could both agree on.



It'd only apply as a strawman argument if I'd claimed that you disagreed with what I'd said in blue.



Now you are definitely making a strawman argument. I never claimed that that just because some diseases are allegedly caused by bacteria means that viruses don't exist. Will get to the rest of your post later.

No. You are misrepresenting what a straw man argument is. By creating a claim and arguing against it, you created a straw man. You didn't directly address my argument at all. You don't have to specifically state something is an argument by the other person in order to build a straw man.

Let's look at the sequence and show why it is a strawman.

Me: If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist?
You: You haven't even proven viruses exist.

My question is premised on viruses not existing. Your response is clearly a straw man since I didn't say I had proven viruses exist. I didn't even attempt to prove they exist. My premise is that they don't exist.

You: Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses.
Either this is a non sequitur or it is an attempt to build on your initial statement and put more straw in your straw man. Other diseases have nothing to do with smallpox. It is building up the straw man further so you can knock it down with your next sentence.


You: If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.
Here you attempt to knock down the straw man you just built by using bad logic. Because some diseases are caused by other factors is not evidence that smallpox exists or is caused by other factors. Notice you mention nothing about smallpox or how it exists. You didn't address my argument at all.

[Phoenyx]

Well, we could argue about the definition of evidence, but I -think- we can agree that belief by itself is not enough in this case, because we clearly have different beliefs as to the existence of viruses. Thus, we must turn to evidence.

OK. Provide your evidence that viruses don't exist. I won't hold my breath.

It's very hard if not impossible to prove that something -doesn't- exist, especially if that something isn't visible to the human eye. It's akin to trying to prove that a God that you can't see doesn't exist. Furthermore, the predominant belief is that viruses -do- exist, with billions being spent on the assumption that this is so. Therefore, it makes much more sense that those like yourself who assert that they exist be the side providing the evidence that this is so.

I will do another post that lists all the reasons why they likely exist.

I'll await that post. Better yet is if you can find anyone who has done the steps outlined in the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement linked to in the opening post.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they can never provide evidence in support of their theory

I never stated that I knew that a conspiracy of any sort is involved here. If I was certain of this, I would have put this thread in the conspiracies and conspiracy theories forum here, as I did for the thread on 9/11.

Non sequitur. Your assertion is that certain illnesses are caused by viruses. In any decent debate, it falls on the one making the assertion to provide evidence, if not proof, for their assertion(s).

So we are still waiting for any actual evidence you have of viruses not existing.

Ah, but I have never stated matter of factly, as you have, that viruses don't exist. I have stated that it is my -belief- and that of the group of doctors and other professionals that this is the case. This belief hinges on various things- that they have never been truly isolated, amoung other things, despite the fact that smaller particles such as proteins have been isolated. The doctors mentioend above have made paper wherein they provide a way for those who believe that viruses exist to prove their case. So far, as far as I know, no one has been able to prove their existence. You're welcome to try to do it yourself.

You have not explained away much of the evidence that they do exist. I will be posting that evidence and we will see if you can refute even half of it.

I await to see this evidence of yours.

Half right. We agree that it exists, not on how people acquire it.

So the observed ways it is acquired are not actually observed?

I haven't seen you provide any evidence that a smallpox virus has been "observed" infecting people.

Do people acquire smallpox if they have not been in contact with any infected people or items from infected people?

I believe so, yes.

Provide evidence to support your claim if you are going to say people can spontaneously get it from an environment that is not known to have had infections prior.

I have never said I had evidence for my belief, other than that I have seen no evidence that viruses exist.

I suspect it's the body's reaction to certain toxins.

Therein lies your problem. You have not told us how and where those toxins come from.

I haven't told you because I don't know. One doesn't have to have complete information in order to question the prevailing dogma. I'm sure there was plenty Aristarchus didn't know when he claimed that the earth rotated around the sun. That doesn't mean that he was wrong, despite religious dogma stating otherwise for around 1800 years:

https://www.astronomytrek.com/who-di...round-the-sun/

Toxins do not occur spontaneously. They must have a source.

Agreed.

They result in localized poisoning.

That sounds reasonable.

If the poison spreads it must follow a pattern that is easy to spot because water and air act a certain way. The poison would also lose toxicity the farther it gets from the source.

That also sounds reasonable.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/transmission/index.html
They spread the virus when they coughed or sneezed and droplets from their nose or mouth spread to other people.
[snip]
These scabs and the fluid found in the patient’s sores also contained the variola virus. The virus can spread through these materials or through the objects contaminated by them, such as bedding or clothing.
Do you have evidence that smallpox doesn't spread this way? This is the way it has spread for centuries without variation. Sick people have infected others.

Just because the CDC says that it is so doesn't mean that it is so.

Let's start to look at the problems with your argument when it comes to smallpox. If one person inhales a toxin, then they can't exhale more than they initially inhaled. That means when they are no longer near the initial exposure they can't produce any of the toxin so that each time they exhale they exhale less of the toxin.

That does sound reasonable.

So explain how this toxin multiples to infect millions if it is reduced in efficacy every time it infects a new person?

I haven't seen any evidence that toxins are multiplying like organic beings if that's what you're asking me. I think we really need to go back to the controlled experiments suggested by the doctors in the "Settling the virus debate".

Yet, exposure to someone that first came down with smallpox miles away can transmit the smallpox to someone that has been locked in a room that has no way for toxins to enter.

Do you have evidence of this?

https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Doc...s/Smallpox.pdf

If there's something in that link that you think provides evidence for your assertion, quote it.

I've never suggested that toxins can multiply. As to toxins going from Europe to the Americas, toxins can be carried on boats just like any living organism, and I see no reason why any toxins produced in Europe couldn't also be produced in another continent with the right equipment. I'm not talking about equipment to make toxins per se, but rather equipment to make coal plants and all the other forms of toxins that are in our environment today, not for the sake of making them, but as by products of our industry.

But you have suggested that toxins can infect millions of people spread around the world.

No, I've never suggested that toxins can infect anyone. The first definition that Wordnik gives for infection is: "The invasion of bodily tissue by pathogenic microorganisms that proliferate, resulting in tissue injury that can progress to disease." I think we can both agree that toxins are not pathogenic microorganisms.

Toxins don't multiply.

Not by themselves, no. But organisms can certainly make them multiply. Alcohol is toxic to the body, and is produced by organisms. Humans can also create or "multiply" toxins artificially by increasing coal plants and other polluting artifacts of industry.

Yes, they can be created by biological or manufacturing sources.

Bingo.

But when they are produced, they are localized and are only in large enough ppm to be toxic near the source.

Even the mainstream media acknowledges that pollution is linked to quite a few people each year:
Pollution linked to 9 million deaths worldwide each year | cbsnews.com

Chinese people were using face masks long before Covid arrived, due to pollution. It's my firm belief that it's pollution and other toxins that are the true cause of Covid as well. Ofcourse, fully acknowledging the harm that pollution does would not be good for many business interests.

As they spread out they are reduced in volume and by the very nature of being toxin they are less toxic in lower quantities. If the toxin was created by equipment to make coal plants then the toxin would only cause sickness in the vicinity were coal plants were being built.

I think you vastly understimate the range of toxins such as those produced in the burning of coal.

That isn't the way Covid or the flu spread. It was not around specific equipment. It was not around a specific area.

Ah, but it was. It allegedly all started in Wuhan. Did you know that Wuhan had city protests over pollution levels shortly before Covid 19 was "discovered"? Here's an article from CNN on it:
China has made major progress on air pollution. Wuhan protests show there’s still a long way to go | CNN

I personally suspect this alleged "progress" as well.

So, now you are going to just deny the symptoms and transfer of disease

Don't confuse symptoms of a disease with its means of acquisition.

I didn't. I said you are going to deny 2 things.

Where have I denied symptoms of diseases?

And as we see, you did just what I said you would do. You demanded evidence of how it is acquired and you denied symptoms when you claimed it was a body's reaction to toxins.

I -suspect- that smallpox is a body's reaction to certain toxins. I don't see how that is denying anything.

[AProudLefty]

The symptoms are pretty specific and consistent for viruses that don't exist.

[Walt]

Uhm... You are arguing that viruses do not exist? LMAO!!!

You understand we remember past bad arguments you make when you make future claims?

[AProudLefty]

Uhm... You are arguing that viruses do not exist? LMAO!!!

You understand we remember past bad arguments you make when you make future claims?

It is a very old discredited theory.

Germ theory denialism is the pseudoscientific belief that germs do not cause infectious disease, and that the germ theory of disease is wrong. It usually involves arguing that Louis Pasteur's model of infectious disease was wrong, and that Antoine Béchamp's was right. In fact, its origins are rooted in Béchamp's empirically disproven (in the context of disease) theory of pleomorphism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

To summarize, the internal body system or some kind of external factors cause the sicknesses, not viruses.

[Walt]

It is a very old discredited theory.

Germ theory denialism is the pseudoscientific belief that germs do not cause infectious disease, and that the germ theory of disease is wrong. It usually involves arguing that Louis Pasteur's model of infectious disease was wrong, and that Antoine Béchamp's was right. In fact, its origins are rooted in Béchamp's empirically disproven (in the context of disease) theory of pleomorphism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

To summarize, the internal body system or some kind of external factors cause the sicknesses, not viruses.

Agreed.


150 years ago, there was still a strong argument for the miasma theory. It did deliver success at first. Today, there is no longer any real argument against the germ "theory."

[Phoenyx]

“Sam Bailey on isolating viruses, and why she is wrong.”
https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2...-she-is-wrong/

”Doctor who posted controversial Covid videos loses fight to stop Medical Council investigation“.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/doctor...OPQMOLADVRMQM/

“New Zealand doctor makes misleading claims about the country’s PCR testing regime in widely shared YouTube video.”
https://factcheck.afp.com/new-zealan...shared-youtube

“Will the ‘Virus Sceptics’ Ever Accept the Evidence That Proves Them Wrong?”
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/10/18/...es-them-wrong/

NEXT

Putting up a few articles that claim that Dr. Sam Bailey and other doctors who have signed on to the Settling the Virus Debate statement are wrong is only evidence that people disagree with their findings. It's not strong evidence that they're actually wrong. If you'd like to quote specific passages from any of those articles that you think make a strong case, though, by all means.

[Phoenyx]

I never claimed that you'd made that argument. I was trying to establish a baseline, something we could both agree on.

It'd only apply as a strawman argument if I'd claimed that you disagreed with what I'd said in blue.

Now you are definitely making a strawman argument. I never claimed that that just because some diseases are allegedly caused by bacteria means that viruses don't exist. Will get to the rest of your post later.

No. You are misrepresenting what a straw man argument is. By creating a claim and arguing against it, you created a straw man.

I made a claim that you agreed with. There was no argument, I was just trying to establish a baseline, something we could both agree on.

You didn't directly address my argument at all.

If you want to provide evidence for your assertion, by all means.

You don't have to specifically state something is an argument by the other person in order to build a straw man.

Agreed, but the argument I built was something that you agreed with, as I thought you would. As I mentioned previously, I was just trying to create a baseline that we could both agree on.

Let's look at the sequence and show why it is a strawman.

Me: If viruses don't exist then how can smallpox exist?
You: You haven't even proven viruses exist.

My question is premised on viruses not existing. Your response is clearly a straw man since I didn't say I had proven viruses exist. I didn't even attempt to prove they exist. My premise is that they don't exist.

We both know that you believe that viruses exist. What you're trying to do is get me to try to prove that they don't exist, something I never set out to do. What this thread is about is getting those who believe viruses exist to provide evidence that this is so.

You: Even today, there are many diseases that everyone agrees aren't caused by viruses.

Either this is a non sequitur or it is an attempt to build on your initial statement and put more straw in your straw man. Other diseases have nothing to do with smallpox. It is building up the straw man further so you can knock it down with your next sentence.

No, I said that to point out the simple fact that pretty much everyone agrees that there are many diseases that aren't caused by viruses. The bottom line is that if we can both recognize that diseases don't need to be caused by viruses, it's not that much of a jump to understand why, without solid evidence that viruses actually exist, the more likely explanation is that diseases attributed to them are in fact caused by other factors.

You: If viruses don't exist, then it's natural that any diseases that are currently claimed to be caused by viruses would simply be caused by other factors.

Here you attempt to knock down the straw man you just built by using bad logic. Because some diseases are caused by other factors is not evidence that smallpox exists or is caused by other factors.

Agreed, but it does provide an alternative to the notion that it's caused by viruses.

Notice you mention nothing about smallpox or how it exists. You didn't address my argument at all.

I did, just not in the way you clearly wanted me to address it. I'm poking at your weak spot, which is the incredibly weak evidence that viruses exist. Understandably, you'd rather focus on other things.

[Phoenyx]

The symptoms are pretty specific and consistent for viruses that don't exist.

I've heard of a lot of symptoms that are allegedly caused by the Cov 2 virus. What I haven't seen is any solid evidence that the Cov 2 virus (or any other biological virus) exists.

[Phoenyx]

Uhm... You are arguing that viruses do not exist?

I'm stating my belief that they don't exist, yes. The arguments themselves are made by the linked statement in the opening post that was signed by various MDs and other professionals.

You understand we remember past bad arguments you make when you make future claims?

It seems clear that you believe that viruses exist. If you're not interested in debating the evidence for that belief, by all means, spend your time elsewhere. This thread is really only for people who'd like to debate the evidence that they do in fact exist.