Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Phoenyx]

I think it's only logical that any theory, for instance the theory that viruses exist, should have solid evidence to back it up. If a theory doesn't have such evidence, it becomes suspect by default.

It has solid evidence.

I strongly disagree.

There is a database that contains over 10 million times that viruses have been sequenced.

I'll refer you back to post #300 for my response to this notion that biological viruses have been sequenced.

You have not provided any evidence to show how those sequences could possibly be wrong.

Again, I disagree, and direct you to post #300 for evidence.

[Phoenyx]

I have claimed that the alleged "science" of these sequences is faulty. A fraud implies that those doing the sequencing area aware that this science is faulty, which I have not claimed.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You should note that I used the word science with air quotes. I don't believe that the scientific method was properly followed to conclude that alleged viral sequences are actually real. Wikipedia's introduction to science is as follows:

**
Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Now, I certainly believe that the veracity of these claims that biological viruses can be tested. In fact, I believe that multiple tests have been done to determine if they are real, multiple tests that failed to find them. The statement referenced in the opening post gets into this. Bolding the most important part:

**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.

However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis.
**

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

[Phoenyx]

It has solid evidence. There is a database that contains over 10 million times that viruses have been sequenced. You have not provided any evidence to show how those sequences could possibly be wrong. You have said the process used is correct when it comes to DNA from humans but somehow that same process becomes flawed with viruses. Can you explain your lack of thinking on this subject?

Irrelevance fallacy. No theory can be proved True, not even a theory of science.

It would appear otherwise, at least when it comes to mathematical proofs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...matical_proofs

Neither of you have referred to ANY theory of science. Neither of you are discussing science at all (other than trying to deny it).

I don't believe either I or Saunders has claimed to refer to any theory of science. However, we have both referred to science itself. I've also referred to the methodology of science.

Whether viruses exist or not is a failure of logic, not science. Viruses exist by definition. This word has existed since the 14th century. They simply are. Proof by identity.

The -term- virus certainly exists. And you'll note that I titled this thread -biological- viruses, to differentiate them from computer viruses, which I do believe exist. I also certainly believe that biological -parasites- exist. What I no longer believe in are biological viruses.

The use of the word to refer to submicroscopic (at least optical ones!) infectious agents is again, just a definition. Viruses exist because they are defined to exist. They have been viewed on electron microscopes.

-Microbes- have been viewed on electron microscopes. The issue that the doctors referenced in the opening post have is with the contention that these microbes are biological viruses.

[Phoenyx]

Strawman, I never claimed I'd presented such evidence. I said "I believe that some of the original people who started the notion that microbes were the predominent cause for illness were frauds, such as Louis Pasteur"

Perhaps I should have limited myself to Louis Pasteur himself. A good article on his fraudulent activities:

Louis Pasteur, Unchecked Fraud: The Unscientific Origins Of Germ Theory | earthdwellerdaily.com

Wait, you are now arguing against the germ theory? That was literally settled 150 years ago or so.

No, it wasn't. Rather, germ theory became the predominant theory. That doesn't mean that it's right. The article I linked to above gets into the fraudulent actions of Louis Pasteur, one of the founders of germ theory.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you say. I can't speak for humans, worms or wombats, but I strongly suspect that those who "decide" such things decided they don't "apply" to biological viruses because they couldn't find biological viruses this way. Furthermore, I believe they couldn't find them this way because they simply don't exist.



Show me proof of this then.



I don't believe that biological viruses have ever been isolated, but if you believe you have evidence that they have in fact been isolated, by all means present it.

Your doctors are free to take nasal swabs form sick people and send it to 20 labs without telling the labs what they are looking for. And yet your doctors haven't done this. I wonder why? All they do is complain that no one else has done the work they don't do.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You seem to be confusing evidence with Koch engaging in fraudulent activities with Koch's postulates, some of which may have been "borrowed" from others. I believe that the statement laid out by the group of doctors that lays out the evidence they'd need to see to be persuaded that biological viruses exist is a good starting point. If these experiments are ever done, I'll probably be the first to post about it here.

Those experiments could be done by the doctors that are complaining they haven't been done. Why won't they conduct the experiments themselves instead of complaining that others won't do it?

Perhaps because if they conducted the experiments then they couldn't sell books complaining about how no one will do the experiments.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The issue is, what precisely are they sequencing if there's no solid evidence that they've ever isolated a biological virus? The group of doctors referenced in the opening post actually address this in their "Settling the Virus Debate Statement", right after they mention the steps that would be needed to be taken in order to provide the most compelling evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist. Bolding the part where sequencing is mentioned:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.
**

The statement then goes on with the steps that are easier to accomplish then what I've mentioned in the past as the "gold standard".

Why won't the doctors do their own experiment? It would take almost nothing for them to send nasal samples to 20 labs and see what the results are.

Could it be because they would lose their money making machine from idiots that buy their bullshit and send them money?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I strongly disagree.

Which only proves you can't tell fact from fiction or evidence from opinion.

I'll refer you back to post #300 for my response to this notion that biological viruses have been sequenced.

Repeating the same bullshit over and over doesn't suddenly make it not be bullshit.

Again, I disagree, and direct you to post #300 for evidence.

Really? Where did you provide evidence proving those sequences were wrong. Post 300 provides zero evidence. It only provides denial of evidence.

[Into the Night]

You should note that I used the word science with air quotes. I don't believe that the scientific method was properly followed to conclude that alleged viral sequences are actually real. Wikipedia's introduction to science is as follows:

**
Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Now, I certainly believe that the veracity of these claims that biological viruses can be tested. In fact, I believe that multiple tests have been done to determine if they are real, multiple tests that failed to find them. The statement referenced in the opening post gets into this. Bolding the most important part:

**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.

However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis.
**

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

Science is not a method or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

[Into the Night]

It would appear otherwise, at least when it comes to mathematical proofs:

Mathematics is not a theory. It is a closed functional system.

I don't believe either I or Saunders has claimed to refer to any theory of science. However, we have both referred to science itself. I've also referred to the methodology of science.

You are claiming your discussion to be about 'scientific proof'. Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system. Science is not a method or a procedure.

The -term- virus certainly exists. And you'll note that I titled this thread -biological- viruses, to differentiate them from computer viruses, which I do believe exist.
I also certainly believe that biological -parasites- exist. What I no longer believe in are biological viruses.

Discard of English.

-Microbes- have been viewed on electron microscopes. The issue that the doctors referenced in the opening post have is with the contention that these microbes are biological viruses.

Discard of English. Semantics fallacy.

[Phoenyx]

So you say. I can't speak for humans, worms or wombats, but I strongly suspect that those who "decide" such things decided they don't "apply" to biological viruses because they couldn't find biological viruses this way. Furthermore, I believe they couldn't find them this way because they simply don't exist.

Show me proof of this then.

I don't believe that biological viruses have ever been isolated, but if you believe you have evidence that they have in fact been isolated, by all means present it.

Your doctors are free to take nasal swabs form sick people and send it to 20 labs without telling the labs what they are looking for. And yet your doctors haven't done this. I wonder why? All they do is complain that no one else has done the work they don't do.

They haven't, but others have. The mainstream media passes it off as "faulty tests" when their ruse is exposed:

Faulty coronavirus kits suspected as goat and fruit test positive in Tanzania | New York Post

Quoting from the article:
**
Coronavirus test kits have aroused suspicions in Salaam, Tanzania after results taken from goats and fruit came back positive in what the country’s leader has dubbed a “technical error.” Tanzanian president John Magufuli memorably raised eyebrows earlier this week for touting an anti-COVID herbal tonic despite no scientific evidence that it cured the coronavirus.

Magufuli claimed he tried to vet the quality of the disease-detection equipment, which was reportedly imported from abroad, by having his security forces obtain random samples from goats, sheep and a local fruit called a pawpaw, Reuters reported. The sub-Saharan nation’s leader said he then assigned them human names and ages and delivered them to lab technicians who were purposefully unaware of their animal origins, in a bizarre blind test.

It was clear something was awry when both the goats and the pawpaw tested positive for the coronavirus. Currently Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report there’s no evidence that a fruit can contract COVID-19, although a variety of animals have recently been diagnosed with the disease, including cats, a dog and tigers at New York City’s Bronx Zoo.
**

Magufuli soon died under suspicious circumstances, so he won't be exposing the sham PCR tests anymore. Similarly, another African President, in this case the President of Burundi, also died under suspicious circumstances after showing WHO the door. Tebogo Brown, writing for South Africa's Independent Online, writes about these deaths in an informative article published last April...

**
There is more to John Magufuli’s demise than meets the eye

Published Apr 20, 2022

Tebogo Brown

Pretoria - Shortly after the death of Tanzanian president John Magufuli on March 17 last year, I wrote a tribute that was submitted to all local and national newspapers. In the same article, I paid tribute to the late president of Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza.

Unfortunately, the reader may not be aware of this article because it was never published.

Magufuli passed away under very suspicious circumstances, and so did Nkurunziza. Magufuli, an educated leader with a PhD in chemistry, used his knowledge and understanding of science to collapse the shaky structure of the Covid-19 pandemic. “The Bulldozer”, as he was known, kicked the World Health Organization (WHO) out of Tanzania after samples of pawpaw and a goat tested positive for Covid-19. Sensing fraud, lies and deceit, Magufuli suspended the head of Tanzania’s National Health Laboratory, Nyambura Moremi, and formed a 10-person investigative committee.

Just like Magufuli, Nkurunziza ordered WHO representatives to leave the country. He suddenly died and his replacement, Évariste Ndayishimiye, invited WHO back. It is worth pointing out that both leaders passed away eight months apart. But new information has emerged. Magufuli was not only hated for his position on lockdowns, masks, social distancing and the Covid-19 pandemic as a whole.

He was hated more for his constant efforts towards nationalising Tanzania’s mineral wealth, which threatened to deprive the West of control over resources deemed essential to the fast-approaching new world order.

Throughout his presidency, Magufuli had locked horns with the most powerful multinational corporations. He kicked out Bill Gates-funded trials of genetically modified crops and opposed some of the most powerful mining companies in the West, which have strong ties with the World Economic Forum.
**

Full article:

There is more to John Magufuli’s demise than meets the eye | Independent Online

[Phoenyx]

You seem to be confusing evidence with Koch engaging in fraudulent activities with Koch's postulates, some of which may have been "borrowed" from others. I believe that the statement laid out by the group of doctors that lays out the evidence they'd need to see to be persuaded that biological viruses exist is a good starting point. If these experiments are ever done, I'll probably be the first to post about it here.

Those experiments could be done by the doctors that are complaining they haven't been done.

Actually, they've suggested that they -have- been done, and those conducting the experiments failed to find anything.

[Phoenyx]

You should note that I used the word science with air quotes. I don't believe that the scientific method was properly followed to conclude that alleged viral sequences are actually real. Wikipedia's introduction to science is as follows:

**
Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Now, I certainly believe that the veracity of these claims that biological viruses can be tested. In fact, I believe that multiple tests have been done to determine if they are real, multiple tests that failed to find them. The statement referenced in the opening post gets into this. Bolding the most important part:

**
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.

However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis.
**

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

Science is not a method or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You are ofcourse free to define science however you like. However, for the purposes of being able to agree on what a term means, I chose Wikipedia's definition. If you can find a well known source that has your definition, by all means present it.

[Phoenyx]

Mathematics is not a theory. It is a closed functional system.

Merriam Webster defines mathematics as "the science of numbers and their operations (see OPERATION sense 5), interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space (see SPACE entry 1 sense 7) configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations"

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics

It also has many theories. Wikipedia has a list of them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tical_theories

You are claiming your discussion to be about 'scientific proof'.

Where did I allegedly claim this?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you got nothing but a different conspiracy theory?

Why haven't those doctors performed the tests they demand others perform? Are they that incapable of conducting them?

PCR tests having nothing to do with sequencing an entire genome. You are simply throwing shit at the wall with this deflection.