Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Phoenyx]

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.

From what I've learned, there are actually 2 branches of Antoine Bechamp's terrain theory. The first doesn't dispute the existence of viruses, the second does. I'm clearly with the second camp.

For anyone who'd like to read an article on terrain theory that agrees that viruses exist, I think the following article is good:

Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day | westonaprice.org

Being part of the terrain theory branch that doesn't agree that viruses exist, I agree with a lot of it, but clearly not the part that agrees that viruses exist.

[Phoenyx]

Today, there is no longer any real argument against the germ "theory."

And yet people, including doctors, still argue against it.

[Walt]

And yet people, including doctors, still argue against it.

Sam Bailey is no longer a doctor.

[Walt]

I'm stating my belief that they don't exist, yes.

They are regularly photographed with electron microscopes. They are made into crystals so every atom of their existence can be mapped. Their genetic sequencing has been done billions of times.

You can see how I would see you as a flat earth proponent... In the figurative sense?

sam bailey on isolating viruses, and why she is wrong
April 19, 2021 | Alison | critical thinking, genetics, nature of science, new science stories, science and society
Recently I was told I needed to go to the Youtube channel of Dr Sam BaileyA and watch one of her videosB. So I did.

This particular video is called The Truth About Virus Isolation, and yes it’s on Youtube, and no I’m not linking directly because I refuse to link to such a misleading channel. It’s ostensibly about the (lack of) isolation of the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Given that there have been a lot of papers published on this very topic, one might expect a discussion of what Bailey sees as their flaws – especially given her lead-in claim that “the scientific literature is a mess” – and at the very least reference to some of them. One would be mistaken. There is, however, a certain amount of shadeC: “I’m not sure if many virologists and scientists are aware of what they’re doing any moreD,” she says, about 10 minutes in. (For some reason she expects journalists to know more & to “call the researchers out.”)

Remember that covid-19 was first identified as a distinct infection back in December 2019 (hence the name) & SARS-Cov-2 (the virus itself) was officially named in early February 2020. The viral genome was described – and shared globally – a little earlier, in mid-January that year. And there have been a large number of papers describing isolation and genomic sequencing from patients the world over (for some examples see here, here, here & here). And here’s a detailed description of steps taken to grow & isolate the virus. Basically researchers can take the liquid that cells grow in, centrifuge it, and pass what they get through a filter.

Sam Bailey seems very hung up on dictionary definitions of “isolate” and “isolation”, but nowhere does she really look at what this entails when it comes to viruses, which (as she correctly notes) have to be grown in living tissues. In effect, this means that Koch’s Postulates can’t be applied in their entirely to viruses, which is hardly surprising since the existence of viruses hadn’t been discovered at the time that Koch developed his guidelines. In fact, even in his lifetime Koch knew that the postulates didn’t apply universally – he knew that Vibrio cholerae was found in healthy people as well as those ill with cholera, for example. In the same vein, the leprosy bacterium has so far been impossible to culture outside of living organisms (humans, armadillos – & mice’s footpads). Since then, microbiologists have adapted his original postulates to accommodate the fact that viruses cannot be grown in pure culture outside of living cells (see here, and here, as examples). Siouxsie Wiles had a bit to say about this late last year.

Bailey then moves on to statements by Vincent Racaniello (of Virology Blog), prefacing them by saying that “My opinions on what are termed viruses and how these relate to disease differ sharply from Professor RacanielloE,” and talks of “establishment virology theories.” While she includes a couple of slides with quotes that come from a video or videos by Racaniello, there are no links to the actual sources, which really made me wonder about the potential for cherry-picking in her claims regarding the lack of clarity in relevant terminology. Fortunately videos of his virology lectures are up on line, and this the one that Bailey appears to be using the most in her own video. It’s fairly easy to follow and you can hear for yourself how he defines the relevant terminology.

Just over 6 minutes into the talk, Bailey talks about “the purported virusF” before going on to show an image from a “studyG” that shows responses from some authors (far from all of them) of papers describing isolation of the virus. Again, she seems to think that without electron microscope images of virions, there has been no purification. It’s worth noting that, once the genome sequence was available and specific PCR tests developed, there was hardly a need for everyone to purify their sample and photograph it; the molecular technologies alone could confirm presence or absence of the virus. However, at the 6:24 timestamp, she complains that “they” haven’t got a “purified form” before returning to a dictionary definition for the purification of bacteria, not viruses. In any case this complaint is groundless, given that institutions such as the CDC hold reference samples of the virus. Pure virus samples are fairly straightforward to isolate from the cells in which they’re been grown. And in fact, it would have been impossible for researchers to undertake this work on the in situ structural analysis of the viral ‘spike’ protein if they didn’t first have a purified sample – in situ means in place on the viral particle. The paper even includes a description of how the pure sample was obtained.

She then presents the results of a request under the Official Information Act to the University of Otago that is so carefully phrased as to suggest that those making the request wanted a negative result. Unsurprisingly that’s what they got. However, it’s clear that Otago researchers led by Prof Quiñones-Mateu & postdoctoral fellow Dr Harfoot are indeed working with the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Why the apparent discrepancy? Because, as we already know, in order to get enough virus to isolate in meaningful amounts, the team would first need to grow more virus particles & this can only be done in living cells – a step that was specifically excluded in the OIA request. I’ve underlined the relevant part in the screenshot below.



Let’s continue.

On the 8:24 timestamp there’s a quote from Prof Racaniello’s video lecture that is taken out of context. “…most of the time we take this nasopharyngeal swab in the solution, we just do the genome sequence and we don’t actually have a physical isolate virus and that’s very important.” According to Bailey, the genomic data by themselves do “not equate to proof of a virus.” To support this she moves to a blog post by Racaniello, which she claims shows him admitting that very same thing.

Again, as is the case throughout this video, there’s no link or url visible, but the blog post is easy to find. What the professor said was that the presence of Zika virus RNA in mice, up to 60 days post-infection, was not the same as the presence of infectious virus. She kind of left that italicised word out. In that blog post it’s clear that the virus was present in the mice at some point – because the researchers infected them with it, & so at the very least the test was detecting prior infection. (CT values on a PCR test do allow an estimation of whether someone is likely to be infectious or not.)

Subsequently there’s a screenshot of a Nextstrain image showing the phylogenetic relationship of SARS-Cov-2 obtained from almost 4,000 individuals (it’s a screenshot from one of Racaniello’s teaching videos, but my link is to the original on the Nextstrain site) and claims that because there were no purified samples then the whole thing is based solely on PCR tests & is nonsense. What she’s conveniently omitting here is the fact that Nextstrain’s analyses are based data from on sequencing of the entire viral genome from each of those individuals – the same sort of thing that’s done here when our Ministry of Health covid-19 team is trying to track potential chains of transmission. Racaniello’s own video describes how the information in that family tree is generated and interpreted by researchers.



However, Bailey would like us to believe that there’s no evidence that any of those genome sequences come from the virus. (Mind-boggling, I know.) As ‘evidence’ for this, she shows a screenshot from a religous organisation’s page that highlights an offer of a 1-million-euro prize to anyone who provides “irrefutable evidence” of isolation of the virus and asking why no scientists have claimed it. Again, no link – but a little detective work shows that it’s an “offer” made by a far-right German antivaccine activist. The offer has strings attached – he wants scientists to follow those original Koch’s Postulates. Hardly surprising that no serious scientist would take the offer seriously, Sam.

Next we see a screenshot from a 1978 letter to the editor of The Lancet, – again, no url or publication details. Why is that? In any case, the authors of the paper comment quite clearly (& you can see this in her screenshot) that the presence of an organism can be identified even in the absence of an isolate, by using other techniques. The image really doesn’t support the laboured point she’s trying to make.

And then, at 11 minutes 58 seconds in, we get the startling statement that the image below, which clearly shows coronavirus particles (you can see their ‘crown’ of spike proteins in the image) outside a cell is actually ‘nanoparticles’ close to a ‘cell wall’. (NB in the absence of any identification of the image source in Bailey’s video, I found it impossible to track down the original. Even Google Lens was no help.) That’s closely followed by an attempt to conflate these particles with structures called exosomes, or extra-cellular vesicles (& again we have this hang-up on definitions rather than actual science), using a screenshot from this journal article that is talking about nomenclature in a rather abstruse way, and not about viruses at all.



And then there’s “this gem of a publication that appeared in the Lancet last year” – you’ll find it here. Interestingly it includes images that the authors clearly view as SARS-Cov-2 virus particles that are near-identical to those that she characterised as non-viral ‘nanoparticles’ just a few minutes earlier in her video. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that the authors characterised other, inaccurate images as the “fraud” that Bailey claims; they say only that these latter images are too ambiguous or show intracellular structures.

In other words, the video is full of inaccuracies, misrepresentation, contradictions, and missing links.

And, verily it is said that the time & effort required to review these things far exceeds the time taken for someone else to produce them.





A Dr Bailey is a Christchurch-based GP. On her YT channel she describes herself as a “research physician” who “researches and covers common medical conditions”. Looking material up in databases or more general online sources doesn’t by itself make you a researcher; at least, not in the sense that people engaged in actual scientific/medical research programs would understand the term.

B I was also advised to buy her book (which is clearly visible in the background throughout this particular video). I did not. It’s interesting how so many of the “experts” held up by those opposed to vaccines are so keen to have you buy products of theirs. Can I say “grifters”? Yes, I can.

C Make that, rather a lot of shade: “the supposed SARS-Cov-2 tests are supposed to react to mRNA that’s specific to the virus.” That is exactly what they do; Bailey needs a refresher on how PCR operates – it’s a highly specific technology.

D This is a bit rich coming from someone who isn’t a virologist or a scientist, but oh well.

E There is more than a little hubris here, & almost a nod to denial of germ theory.

F And a nod to the conspiracy theory that the virus doesn’t exist? (see also E.)

G The results, she says, are published in her book, so we aren’t talking peer-reviewed material here.

https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2...-she-is-wrong/

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Dr Sam Bailey in no longer a doctor. She is a charlatan that posts stuff on the web in order to make money from fools. New Zealand took away her medical license for promoting unscientific bullshit.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

It actually should be easy to prove, you only need to show actual evidence that diseases are caused by something other than a virus. The diseases exist and people have symptoms. You only need to have a credible reason for those symptoms that can withstand even basic scrutiny. So far, you have presented nothing but denialism

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.

You are presenting the classic arguments presented in any conspiracy theory. You have no evidence.

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.

And they presented a way that is impossible to occur because they asked for things that can't be done with a virus. I already went over this with you. It would be like saying you don't believe humans exist unless they are kept in water for a week and survive.

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

ROFLMAO. Standard denial for a conspiracy nut. Are you a conspiracy nut? You certainly act like one in your "beliefs" without evidence and your denial of over 200 years of history. Did you intend to use a straw man argument here? Because I said nothing about a virus being observed. For over 200 years it has been observed that people in close proximity to others infected with smallpox are likely to come down with smallpox. This occurs even if they are not in the same locality as where the first person was originally infected.

I believe so, yes.

Please provide historical evidence of one person infected with smallpox that has not been in contact with others infected.

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

And there is the classic conspiracy nut argument. You have no evidence to dispute the evidence that says viruses do exist. You just don't believe. If you don't rely on evidence for your conclusions then we really have no way to discuss any subject. You are an idiot that just believes in bullshit and can't be convinced by evidence.

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/

Aristarchus had evidence for his conclusion. He didn't believe without evidence. You have admitted you have no evidence supporting what you believe. In fact all evidence points to your beliefs being unsupported by any actual science.

Agreed.

Since toxins have to have a source, it is strong evidence that your claim that smallpox is the result of toxins can't be true. Sources of toxins don't magically move from person to person.

That sounds reasonable.

Since you now agreed that poisonings are localized to the source, it proves that a disease that spreads worldwide and can be traced through contacts with other infected people can't be the result of a toxin.

That also sounds reasonable.

And yet no pattern similar to poisons occurs when the disease is said to be caused by a virus. Once again, proving your beliefs are not supported by any actual evidence.

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

The CDC says it based on over 200 years of historical knowledge of how the disease is spread. It was known that it was spread by contact in the 1700's.
https://www.history.com/news/colonis...llpox-blankets
The way the disease is spread hasn't changed since that time. You have presented no evidence to dispute 200 years of history.

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".

What controlled experiments? They are asking for bullshit. And you are right there believing their bullshit.

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.

Since toxins are not microorganisms they can only be the result of a specific source. That source doesn't move around when people move. That source doesn't travel thousands of miles on a plane to make someone that never was in contact with the source sick.

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.

But everything you must mentioned has a static source that doesn't travel with a sick person to make another person sick. The only way a person can get sick is to be at the source of the toxin.

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

The pollution has clear sources.

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.

If Covid is the result of pollution, why was it not around before 2019? What universal source of this toxin suddenly only became available in 2019? There is none. Your argument defies science and logic.

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

No. I don't. Toxins are more deadly the closer one is to the source. In the case of Covid, deaths occurred all over the world. How did the disease start one place and then spread to other places in a pattern that allowed tracing of the humans carrying a virus? The disease did not spread in a pattern than would occur with a source spreading pollution

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

Are you saying noone outside Wuhan was ill with Covid? People all over the world came down with the disease. The world is NOT a specific area.

[Nordberg]

This is a post by someone who wants to believe viruses do not exist. This is proof they do by a professional.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN23335V

[Nordberg]

This is a thread by someone who wants to believe viruses do not exist. This is proof they do by a professional.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN23335V

[Phoenyx]

Sam Bailey is no longer a doctor.

I'm guessing you mean that she is no longer licensed to practice allopathic medicine? If so, could you present an article which presents evidence that this is true?

[Phoenyx]

I'm stating my belief that they don't exist, yes.

They are regularly photographed with electron microscopes.

Microbes and cellular particles are regularly photographed with electron microscopes. I've seen no solid evidence that they are viruses.

They are made into crystals so every atom of their existence can be mapped.

I must admit, I hadn't heard that one before. If you can present evidence that a virus has ever truly been isolated, by all means do so.

Their genetic sequencing has been done billions of times.

I've seen no solid evidence that a virus has ever been isolated, let alone sequenced. You can't sequence a virus if you can't even isolate it. What is actually done is a bit complicated, but I found that the following journalist did a good job of explaining the flaws in the case of the Cov 2 virus:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

[AProudLefty]

If viruses don't exist, then what are in the vaccines?

[Phoenyx]

Dr Sam Bailey in no longer a doctor.

Walt just said the same thing. I'm assuming you mean that her license to practice allopathic medicine was revoked? If so, can you present me with evidence that this happened?

She is a charlatan that posts stuff on the web in order to make money from fools.

Insulting Sam Bailey and those who believe in her does nothing to further your arguments.

[Phoenyx]

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.

It actually should be easy to prove, you only need to show actual evidence that diseases are caused by something other than a virus.

You already agreed that various diseases are caused by something other than a virus. That doesn't prove that all diseases aren't caused by a virus.

The diseases exist and people have symptoms.

That doesn't mean that diseases alleged to be caused by a biological virus are actually caused by a biological virus.

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.

You are presenting the classic arguments presented in any conspiracy theory. You have no evidence.

At the risk of devating somewhat from the point of this thread, I think it'd be good to try to establish some type of agreement as to what the 2 words that make up "conspiracy theory" mean. I think we could perhaps agree on the law definition of conspiracy for our purposes here. I think the Wikitionary definition serves our purposes here:
**
The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
**

Source:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy

As to theory, there are numerous definitions as can be seen below:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/theory

As you can see, there are definitions for theory that run the gamut from definitions such as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena", all the way to assumptions and conjecture.

I came up with a definition a while back that I think takes these various definitions into account:
A theory is an educated guess, as far as one's education on the subject goes. Thus, their are good theories and bad ones. It all depends on the evidence they have in their favour.

When we put the words conspiracy and theory together, we get to the point where we should be able to see that there can be both well evidenced conspiracy theories, as well as poorly evidence conspiracy theories. I personally tend to shy away from ones that have little if any evidence. Now, hopefully we can get back to the -actual- point of this thread, which is discussion in the evidence, or lack thereof, of biological viruses.

[Phoenyx]

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.

And they presented a way that is impossible to occur because they asked for things that can't be done with a virus.

I think the truth is rather that it can't be done because biological viruses don't exist.

I already went over this with you. It would be like saying you don't believe humans exist unless they are kept in water for a week and survive.

I think that's a poor analogy.

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

ROFLMAO. Standard denial for a conspiracy nut.

Ah, here come the ad hominems. Well, you had a good run.

[Phoenyx]

This is a post by someone who wants to believe viruses do not exist. This is proof they do by a professional.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN23335V

Your article claims that alleged biological viruses have been isolated. I have seen no evidence that this is true.