Scott
Verified User
Why do you believe that Mike Stone is implying that this is the "only or even primary method" that virologists use today? I for one am not sure as to how often this method is used today.
APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Why do you believe that Mike Stone is implying that this is the "only or even primary method" that virologists use today? I for one am not sure as to how often this method is used today.
Scott
Verified User
Somehow, I doubt that you've read all of Mike Stone's articles. He's pointed out -many- flaws in the methodologies used by virologists. Speaking of which, I recall there was a post where I took a deep dive into Mike Stone's work on virologist methodologies and that you never responded to that post, post #343 to be precise. It's here:
What evidence has Mike Stone provided that the theory of viruses is wrong? He has conducted zero experiments. He has only presented logical fallacies.
He has not presented any evidence of black swans. He has made unproven claims that science might make mistakes. Mistakes don't show that viruses don't exist. Did he conduct any experiments to show that the experiments he claimed used bad logic did actually result in something other than the claim? We have been over this and you refused to address it.
Mike Stone is guilty of circular reasoning. His argument is that in order for viruses to exist they must act exactly like bacteria and since viruses don't act exactly like bacteria then they can't exist. Viruses are not bacteria so requiring that they act like bacteria is psuedoscience.
You are convinced that viruses don't exist. You are guilty of confirmation bias which is obvious since you only use the same sources and refuse to look at anything that would dispute your bias. Mike Stone is guilty of confirmation bias.
If I propose that swans exist, can you show they don't exist by going to one lake and claiming that since there were no swans on that lake they must not exist? That would be nonsense. If I say that swans exist and you can find them on several lakes including Round Lake. If you go to Round Lake and don't find any swans does that show swans don't exist? Such an argument would be nonsense since I could have been mistaken about Round Lake or they might have not been there when you were there. If I say swans exist and you can find them on several lakes and you refuse to go to look at swans on those lakes but claim you have never seen swans so they must not exist. that would show you don't know the first thing about science or falsification.
When it comes to evidence of viruses you are the fool that refuses to look at the evidence and proclaims they don't exist because you refused to look at any evidence.
Last edited:
Since you don't know how often it is used, how can you make any evaluation of the veracity of Mike Stone's claims?
You are guilty of confirmation bias. You believe Mike Stone because you refuse to do any research that would show him to be wrong.
Mike Stone does NOT do any deep dives into the methodologies of virology. He cherry picks less than 1% of their methods. I have told you this repeatedly and posted links to papers that Mike Stone never addresses. You simply refuse to read anything that would show that Mike Stone is using faulty logic and cherry picking to try to confirm his and your bias.Somehow, I doubt that you've read all of Mike Stone's articles. He's pointed out -many- flaws in the methodologies used by virologists. Speaking of which, I recall there was a post where I took a deep dive into Mike Stone's work on virologist methodologies and that you never responded to that post, post #343 to be precise. It's here:
Let's recap.
Viruses are not bacteria. Humans are not bacteria. Requiring that viruses be isolated the same way as bacteria is a logical fallacy. In order for the logic to actually work you would have to apply the same rules to humans as you do to viruses. Failure to do that shows you are using pseudoscience. The fact that humans and viruses can't be isolated exactly like bacteria is the black swan that proves that isolation argument wrong. Before you start the nonsense about viruses and bacteria are both microbes, that is also nonsense. Viruses do not have a cellular structure. Humans and bacteria do have a cellular structure. Since humans and bacteria both have a cellular structure by your logic humans don't exist since they can't be isolated the same way as viruses. You can't pick one similar feature and then declare the similarity means all parts must be exactly alike.
At this point I have shown that the requirement that viruses need to be isolated the same way as bacteria is nonsense that is based on a fallacy. If you don't except that then you are stuck in your confirmation bias.
Well, he has this book you see... And he's mentioned several times that this author of that book has said something that he thinks is right because he wants it to be and he has also rejected any information presented that would show his author does not know how to science...
So, my best guess is he'll one more time give you links to something written by this guy, be wrong about how science works, and believe that the entire scientific community across the entire globe have all gotten together to lie to him along with all governments everywhere, even the ones that hate the others, just like a flat earther.
IMHO he has proven himself to be nothing more than a flat earther on a microscopic scale.
Scott
Verified User
You're changing the goalposts. Your original claim was "the fact that there were failues in the claims doesn't disprove viruses". I simply pointed out that Mike Stone never made that claim. Now, if we take away the double negative, you are asking if he claims that there is evidence for biological viruses. I think we can agree that he is consistent in saying that he sees no solid evience for their existence. I hope you realize that there is a difference between claiming that there is no solid evidence for something and proving that something doesn't exist. Put another way- I've seen no solid evidence that unicorns exist. That's not the same thing as saying that I have proven that they don't exist.
Scott
Verified User
Mike Stone asserts that viruses don't exist.Alright, can you elaborate on why you think that Mike Stone is affirming the consequent? For those who are unfamiliar with this term, Wikipedia provides a helpful explanation:
**
For example, it may be true that a broken lamp would cause a room to become dark. It is not true, however, that a dark room implies the presence of a broken lamp. There may be no lamp (or any light source). The lamp may also be off. In other words, the consequent (a dark room) can have other antecedents (no lamp, off-lamp), and so can still be true even if the stated antecedent is not.
**
Source:
Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I have never seen Mike Stone assert this. What I -have- seen Mike Stone assert is that there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. Again, it's the difference between saying that I've seen no solid evidence that unicorns exist and asserting that I -know- they don't exist.
Scott
Verified User
One small (actually its huge) problem with your argument. Galileo did the science to support his theory and prove the consensus wrong.No, no grand conspiracy. It's more like Galileo challenging the Catholic church on its view that everything revolved around the earth. As far as I know, he never accused the Catholic Church of some grand conspiracy. For its part, the Catholic church stated that Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun had no scientific basis. I think we can agree that it was Galileo that was right, but at the time, the Catholic Church had a lot of power and so Galileo was put under house arrest for voicing his beliefs on the matter. Wikipedia has an article on the matter here:
Galileo affair - Wikipedia
Did he actually prove it? I think it's more that to this day, no one has found evidence to falsify the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Or to put it another way, no one has found any metaphorical black swans, and thus, we can be "reasonably confident" that the earth does revolve around the sun. For anyone not familiar with falsifiability and black swans, please take a look at my post #400 in this thread.
Scott
Verified User
Both sides have done experiments- the main issue is which ones followed the scientific methodology. I have already written a post getting into the evidence that many experiments conducted by virologists weren't following the scientific method in post #343. In essence, virology has metaphorically posited that there are only white swans, while Mike Stone and others have pointed out the many black swans in their methodology.
Scott
Verified User
You really need to be more careful when it comes to reading my posts. For the audience, I will once again repeat that I have never claimed that DDT was the only cause of polio.
Scott
Verified User
I've just told you that I don't know -anyone- who doesn't believe that bacteria exist.
Again, you really have to play closer attention to what I actually say. Here's what I -actually- said, in post #344:
"I've definitely heard of this pseudoscientific method of "detecting" alleged biological viruses."
It's pseudoscientific because there is no scientific evidence that biological viruses exist. I have never said that bacteria don't exist, let alone poisons.
Scott
Verified User
Hold on a second there. Possible source of what?
Scott
Verified User
I'm going to assume you meant "That is precisely -what- you're implying...". In any case, I don't understand why you think that my comparing virology to scientology implies that I think that there's some grand conspiracy to "keep the lies going". As I've mentioned in the past, there are thousands of religious sects in the world- that doesn't mean that everyone is 'keeping the lies going'. People just believe a lot of different things despite the lack of evidence for many of those things.
Scott
Verified User
Various religions would disagree. To name an example, the Catholic church said that Galileo's view that the earth revolved around the sun was scientifically indefensible, implying that the Catholic church believed in the scientific method. I think we'd agree that the Catholic church was mistaken, at least when it came to the evidence that the earth resolves around the sun.
I'm sure that virologists would posit that they too follow the scientific method. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise. Again, I get into the flaws in virology's experiment methodology in post #343.
Scott
Verified User
I'm sure the Catholic Church thought much the same way when they placed Galileo under house arrest for his heretical view that the earth revolved around the sun.
They have. Part of the evidence is in the opening post of this thread. There is more as well, which I have been posting about since that first post.
I imagine the Catholic Church would have said much the same thing as they were placing Galileo under house arrest.
Scott
Verified User
"covid lockdowns, instead of whether biological viruses exist at all'I created no strawman. I made it clear that I was talking about the mainstream narrative in regards to "covid in general as well as biological viruses". Clearly, in the case of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, his focus was on the covid lockdowns, instead of whether biological viruses exist at all, but he also got some pretty negative backlash for his stand. To whit:
**
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who received death threats and was blacklisted by social media for challenging the feds' narrative on the Covid lockdown...
**
Source:
Intellectual Freedom Award goes to Stanford doctor who challenged Covid narrative | FreePressers
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who received death threats and was blacklisted by so...freepressers.com
Fortunately, a fair amount of people have now realized that he was in the right and he has now received the American Academy of Sciences and Letters’ top intellectual freedom award.
It is my hope that one day, people such as Dr. Tom Cowan, the Bailey doctors and Mike Stone also receive recognition for their great work in exposing the fraud of virology.
Correct, which is why he's still a licensed doctor.
Agreed- one can push back a -little- against the viral narrative, but there are limits. I imagine the Catholic Church would have thought much the same way back in Galileo's day- perhaps the grand arguments of the day were how many angels could dance on the head of a needle. Galileo's heresy simply went beyond what they were willing to tolerate.
Scott
Verified User
You're free to try to prove this if you like.