Now -that- right there is a deflection. We had been talking about claims made by -virologists-, but you apparently got confused and started thinking we were talking about a claim made by some doctor who disagrees with them.
According to who?
Members banned from this thread: evince, Doc Dutch and Concart |
this whole thread was a psyop to "dirty the well" about exosomes and virus discussions.
for example, one can believe viruses exist, but THAT THE COVID VIRUS IN PARTICULAR IS FAKE NEWS.
these two are trying negate that as a position in this discussion.
morality is a set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
Trump Wins,
by definition https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/trump
Now -that- right there is a deflection. We had been talking about claims made by -virologists-, but you apparently got confused and started thinking we were talking about a claim made by some doctor who disagrees with them.
According to who?
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
I'm simply noting that for the most part, this is just a conversation between you and me. I don't think it's hard to understand my position. What's hard is to understand how I got there. It requires a lot of reading of fairly technical information that I imagine most people don't think is worth their time. To be fair, I tend to have a fair amount of time to do these types of things and I understand that many people don't.
You made 2 claims:
1- That I have no evidence for my belief that Dr. Mark Bailey makes a compelling case in his farewell to virology essay that virology is not science, but pseudo science.
2- That I have no evidence disputing the existence of viruses.
I'm simply asking you to prove your claims. I'm pretty sure you won't even try, but I think it's good to point out the fact that you tend to make a lot of claims that you can't actually prove.
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
I may have once read about "microzymas", but it certainly wasn't a term I remembered. Anyway, I looked up the term and I came up with the following article on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zymotic_disease
It's a term that was apparently coined by Antoine Bechamp, who may well be the founder of Terrain theory, but I think it's important to note that he's a man who died over a century ago. Terrain theory has evolved since then. The linked article I pointed you to doesn't mention microzymas at all.
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
What specific claim made by a virologist do you think we were talking about? The only thing you keep bringing up is the doctors Bailey and their denials of evidence. Your quote is specifically from Dr Bailey and unless Dr Bailey is suddenly a virologist you are not presenting claims made by a virologist.
Provide your evidence of a human being isolated from the bacteria found in their stomach and intestine. No person has ever been isolated from that biome because they need it to survive.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Your quote doesn't actually say that causation requires correlation, though it does make sense.
You're not accounting for various things- things like dosage, duration of exposure, health of those exposed and perhaps most importantly, someone to test in a competent fashion for polio like symptoms. Also, as I've said before, I have never claimed there was any evidence that DDT was the -only- cause of polio. This should be obvious anyway, as polio was around before DDT. -Other- toxins were around though.
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
Saunders also tends to make ad hominem attacks of this nature at times, perhaps varying "stupid people" with "idiots" and 'tin foil hatters'. I think the bottom line is the same- by attacking people's characters rather than their arguments, it tends to derail efforts to keep focused on the evidence for a given position rather than the person or people who hold said position.
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
When are you going to prove Dr Bailey has evidence? The Baileys are the ones promoting pseudo-science. You have never been able to tell us what falsifiable theory they are advancing and how it can be falsified.
You are promoting pseudo-science since you keep using them as your source.
I have repeatedly pointed out things that have not been covered by Bailey.
A compelling case would tell us how the Nobel committee was wrong when they gave the prize for growing polio virus in a tissue medium. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us how Cutter vaccine could get 40,000 people sick if it was not a virus in the vaccine. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us what the actual source is for the illnesses allegedly caused by viruses is. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us why RNA is found for specific viruses in people that have an illness with specific symptoms. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
A compelling case would tell us what is the the pictures that purport to show polio virus since it can't be polio virus. The Baileys have not addressed this so they have not presented a compelling case.
Denial is not a compelling case. Ignoring evidence is not a compelling case. Cherry picking evidence that supports your beliefs is not a compelling case.
Now, it's up to you to tell us why the Baileys are cherry picking evidence and ignoring so much other evidence. Can you explain their behavior?
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
I'm not. The way I see it, -anyone- who believes that things like lockdowns, covid vaccine mandates and mask mandates did more harm than good is in the same general mindset as I am.
To give an example, I agree more with someone who disagrees with the vaccine mandates even if they believe that the Cov 2 virus and every other virus ever postulated by man exists then someone who thought that the vaccine mandates were a good thing.
If you believe that the Cov 2 virus doesn't exist but still believe in other biological viruses, I can even point you to an article that supports that particular position, while having doubts about some other viruses, namely this one:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
This would be another clear example of you and your pseudo-science as you make a false claim.
Are you saying you didn't bother to read the link you gave? It's right there in the comparison of terrain theory to germ theory.
https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/t...he-germ-theory
Terrain theory:
insists there is a smaller unit of life, the microzyme (plural microzymas)
The word microzymas is used at least 4 times in your link. You can't search for it because it isn't in the text but it is there. Can you see it now?
So now.. tell us when microzymas have been isolated and grown in culture.
Or are you saying we shouldn't use the same standard for microzymas that you demand we use for viruses?
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
An answer to the contentions made is not an ad hominem no matter what words are used. That is why you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "rather."
The fact that you ignore all the arguments made in answer to your contentions does not make my argument an ad hominem. It means you are attempting to not deal with the arguments by pulling a bullshit move.
marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Bookmarks