APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You should know by now that I haven't found any solid evidence that biological viruses exist. Therefore, the logical conclusion should be that I don't believe any biological viruses are involved in the polio epidemics.

We have been over this and you refuse to discuss. Your refusal to look is not the same thing as there being no evidence. The only thing we have established beyond any doubt is that you refuse to look at any evidence.

That's right.



The argument that I presented a while back, which wasn't even my theory, but Tessa Lena's (who herself came to that conclusion after reading from her own sources) is that DDT was probably -one- of the causes of polio. So in some cases, it could have been a cause, or the sole cause, and in other cases, it could have been something else. Because I have seen no solid evidence that biological viruses exist, that leaves other toxins, such as arsenic.



It's certainly a simple question. It's the answer that's hard. The short answer is I'm not sure. The longer answer: due to the evidence that other toxins, such as arsenic, look like they could also have caused polio, I suspect that DDT was not the sole cause of polio between 1940 and 1960, but may well have been the principal cause.

The short answer is that there is no scientific reason for DDT to stop causing polio. Since polio outbreaks ended but DDT use did not, the correct scientific answer is that DDT could not be the cause of polio. Any other answer is pseudoscience since it ignores facts that are clearly in evidence.
Bottom line, you are relying on pseudoscience.

Simple science and simple logic
hypothesis - If A is present then B occurs
observation - A is present for 18 years and B occurs then suddenly for 8 years A is present in higher concentrations and B doesn't occur.
Conclusion - the hypothesis is wrong.
Simply claiming you don't know is pseudoscience. Science requires you to discard or modify your original hypothesis since facts didn't show it to be correct.

DDT being present can't cause polio to occur since polio stopped occurring in 1963 but DDT wasn't banned until 1972. There MUST be some other cause than DDT. Any claim that DDT caused polio is illogical and falsified by facts of DDT not causing polio for 8 years.

 

[Scott]

OMFG. You seem to be unable to read or understand..

The second critique of the arsenic-virus theory is the toxin-only critique -- there’s no such thing as a poliovirus, or if there is it doesn’t trigger epidemics of paralytic illness; therefore, the “vaccine” didn’t really end those epidemics. Under this theory, It was banning DDT that caused the epidemics to diminish. Cases were camouflaged as "flaccid paralysis."

Then you completely ignore the earlier part of that section. The author in no way accepts the theory that the virus doesn't exist.

Quote him saying that he has discarded the possibility that the polio virus doesn't exist and you'd have a case.

ROFLMAO.

Not sure what you think is so funny...

Quote him saying that he has discarded the possibility that the polio virus exists and you would have a case.

Nice try, but you're the one who made the assertion that Dan Olmstead "in no way accepts the theory that the virus doesn't exist". Thus, it's up to you to provide solid evidence that that's the case.

Citing the argument that your critics make doesn't mean you accept their criticism.

For me, the fact that he doesn't discard the theory suggests that he thinks it's possible that they're right. I'm the first to admit that I'm not sure -how- possible he thinks it is that the polio virus doesn't exist.

Citing the argument that your critics make doesn't mean you accept their criticism. If it did mean that then when you quote people here you would be saying you think viruses do exist.

True. I found his evidence that polio had causes -other- than the alleged polio virus to be compelling. That's why I quoted and referenced his article.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I have never said that alleged biological viruses need to act like bacteria. The issue has always been whether there is any valid scientific evience that biologival viruses exist. I have found none.



Could you quote what you're referring to, along with the link in question?

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.
...
Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification
have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing

Dr Bailey admits that particles have been isolated and then ignores all the evidence that those particles are viruses to instead argue that the particles can't be viruses because they don't act like bacteria.

But then we get to the part where Dr Bailey requires that in an experiment viruses act like bacteria and ignores the fact that they aren't bacteria.

4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness
in test subjects, by using valid controls

This completely ignores the theory of how some viruses are passed from person to person through aerosols. Viruses don't transfer alone in the natural world. They are carried by some substance that helps to contain them and help them invade cells. Dr Bailey is using pseudoscience and obfuscation to try to not let you see that she is the one ignoring the definition of a virus.

 

[ZenMode]

Sigh -.- Just as I said that people allegedly dying of Covid didn't have fake deaths, people who get sick from the flu or covid aren't getting 'fake' sick. Everyone is getting sick from -something-, the issue is what that something is.

Right, so you don't know what made people sick when the scientific world claimed HIV existed, but it certainly wasn't what the scientific world was claiming. And now tjat the scientific world has developed a treatment for what they claimed, HIV/AIDS, you're sure it wasn't actually that. You don't know what "it" is that made people sick in the 80's, but you're confident it was not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

But, you're also saying that the scientific world just happened to magically be on the same page, there wasn't a conspiracy.

Do I have that right?

If biological viruses aren't real, then clearly other things must be making people sick.

You don't know what those things are, but you know it's absolutely not what we're being told.

I'm sure you agree that even for those who believe in biological viruses, viruses aren't the only cause of illness.

What other "things" make you ill and how are you going to prove that they exist?

For example, food poisoning. How do you know that food poisoning exists? Could it not just be a coincidence and it actually be some else that is making people sick?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, it's a crass way of saying that something is flawed. If you want a productive conversation, you'd say it's flawed. If, on the other hand, you just want to argue with the other person for argument's sake, then you'll continue to use such crass terms.

Hmm.. so saying something is flawed is just arguing for argument's sake?

Because something is a crass way of saying it doesn't make it an argument for argument's sake it just another way of saying something. Your inability to defend your position so you resort to silly logical fallacies about what words I use is rather obvious.

At this point, you have told us that Mike Stone is just arguing for argument's sake since his entire argument is based on saying something is flawed. I guess that means we can completely discount his arguments like you seem to want to do mine.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Not sure what you think is so funny...



Nice try, but you're the one who made the assertion that Dan Olmstead "in no way accepts the theory that the virus doesn't exist". Thus, it's up to you to provide solid evidence that that's the case.

ROFLMAO. You made the assertion that he did accept that theory. You made that assertion based solely on the fact that he cites it as one of the critiques of his theory. Your assertion is not supported by solid evidence so to avoid providing any solid evidence you demand I prove the negative of your claim.
Once again, you show us you do not rely on logic for any of your claims.

For me, the fact that he doesn't discard the theory suggests that he thinks it's possible that they're right. I'm the first to admit that I'm not sure -how- possible he thinks it is that the polio virus doesn't exist.

His entire theory piece about how DDT activated the virus and made it more virulent shows he discards the theory that the virus doesn't exist. It's like you want to argue that he has no position when he writes several thousand words stating his position that you claim he doesn't have.

True. I found his evidence that polio had causes -other- than the alleged polio virus to be compelling. That's why I quoted and referenced his article.

You found it compelling that polio is a virus that can be made more virulent by arsenic while at the same time declaring that there no such thing as a virus. Do you know how delusional that makes you sound?


Let me know when you can actually consider this and answer if you think it is true or not.
Simple science and simple logic
hypothesis - If A is present then B occurs
observation - A is present for 18 years and B occurs then suddenly for 8 years A is present in higher concentrations and B doesn't occur.
Conclusion - the hypothesis is wrong.

 

[Scott]

I have never said that alleged biological viruses need to act like bacteria.

You have never said it but your sources require viruses to act like bacteria for their arguments to have any merit

I don't agree with your assertion, but you're welcome to try to provide solid evidence for your claim.

 

[Scott]

An argument that is [insults removed]

Again, if you think that an argument is flawed, just say that. Using invective just stirs up emotions and tends to shut down productive discussion.

LOL. Once again, you use deflection rather than addressing an actual argument.

No, I'm pointing out why using insulting terms detracts from actual debate.

 

[Scott]

Mike Stone argues against 75 year old science that has been discarded or modified based on science actually using the scientific method.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, he's referring to the a method that has been used to "discover" the Cov 2 virus. It just took me a bit to realize it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, I'm pointing out why using insulting terms detracts from actual debate.

Let's examine the scientific method.
The scientific method is this -

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-507-w.pdf

State the problem
Form a hypothesis
Observe and Experiment
Interpret Data
Draw Conclusions
(Revise the hypothesis as needed and repeat)

Do you agree that this is the scientific method? Do you agree that something that fails to use this method is conducting pseudoscience?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As I've pointed out elsewhere, he's referring to the a method that has been used to "discover" the Cov 2 virus. It just took me a bit to realize it.

Because Mike Stone says something doesn't make it true. Cite where he claims how they specifically discovered the virus then we can compare his claims to the science.

 

[Scott]

You realize that nothing in that article claims that measles doesn't exist, right?

I think Mr. Stone was quite wise in avoiding that claim.

Of course he is. Making such a claim, today, would make him sound like a raving lunatic.

You're certainly good at exagerations. I'd say that claiming that the measles virus -does- exist is actually worse than claiming that it doesn't, but the best approach is to do neither. Proving that things exist or don't exist is frequently beyond our capabilities. Instead, focusing on what theory has the most evidence is generally the best way to go.

 

[Scott]

The focus of Mike Stone and the other signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement is to point out the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist-

The evidence that biological viruses exist far....faaaaaar outweighs the evidence that they don't.

We clearly disagree on that point.

 

[Scott]

as far as I know, none of them has said that there is -proof- that they don't exist.

There's no proof that a pink unicorn, riding a chariot pulled by leprechauns, isn't the creater of the universe, is there?

Exactly! Proving just about anything can be hard if not impossible. Providing -evidence- for a given position is generally a lot easier.

 

[Scott]

It's the difference between saying that there's proof that unicorns don't exist and simply saying that there is no solid evidence that they exist.

I don't even know what you mean when you say "proof that unicorns don't exist". Reasonable people look at a claim - unicorns exist - and look for evidence to support that claim. We don't say "Prove to me that unicorns don't exist" because it can't be done. No matter what I would say, you can't prove that a unicorns doesn't exist.

It's Russell's Teapot:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

This is basically what you are doing.

Anyone can do it, for virtually any position. This is why the prudent approach is not to demand proof for or against the existence of biological viruses, but instead to focus on what position has more evidence, or lack thereof.

 

[Scott]

You should know by now that I haven't found any solid evidence that biological viruses exist. Therefore, the logical conclusion should be that I don't believe any biological viruses are involved in the polio epidemics.

We have been over this and you refuse to discuss.

I refuse to discuss what?

Your refusal to look is not the same thing as there being no evidence.

My refusal to look at what, your 20 papers that you believe offer solid evidence that biological viruses exist? As I've said before, I'm not averse to looking at selected quoted passages that you think make your case, but I'm not going to go on a fishing expedition to try to find evidence for your position. I call that asking your opponent to do your homework for you. If you think there's something within those papers that makes your case, quote it and then provide the reference to the paper(s) in question.

 

[Scott]

It's certainly a simple question. It's the answer that's hard. The short answer is I'm not sure. The longer answer: due to the evidence that other toxins, such as arsenic, look like they could also have caused polio, I suspect that DDT was not the sole cause of polio between 1940 and 1960, but may well have been the principal cause.

The short answer is that there is no scientific reason for DDT to stop causing polio.

Can we agree that, assuming that DDT is in fact a cause of polio, that a drastic reduction in the use of DDT would result in a drastic reduction in polio cases?

Since polio outbreaks ended but DDT use did not, the correct scientific answer is that DDT could not be the cause of polio.

DDT -was- banned, at least in the U.S., in 1972. Tessa Lena talks about this in her article:
**
DDT as a possible cause of polio

There is a theory that DDT poisoning was a major contributor to paralysis diagnosed as polio. The timeline supports it, and it is one of those cases where I have to humbly accept not knowing the definitive answer at this very second.

The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1954. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. Polio was officially eradicated in the U.S. in 1979. (The vaccine-derived version of polio (!) is reported to be spreading now in developing countries, and according to ABC News, “More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus.”)
**

Source:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science

We’re told the science on polio is settled — but that may not be the case. There are scientists who believe polio-like symptoms could be caused by toxic substances, including pesticides.

childrenshealthdefense.org

DDT being present can't cause polio to occur since polio stopped occurring in 1963 but DDT wasn't banned until 1972. There MUST be some other cause than DDT.

For starters, Tessa Lena stated that polio wasn't officially eradicated in the U.S. until 1979. Secondly, while DDt may not have been banned until 1972, its production was severely curtailed by the early 60s. Perhaps most important of all, however, Tessa Lena never argued that DDT was the only possible cause of polio. Looking through her article, I came upon another article that I've seen before and that has a graph that I think is interesting. I'll share it below:
**
Pesticide Composite: Summary

Just over three billion pounds of persistent pesticides are represented in the graph below.

Virtually all peaks and valleys correlate with a direct one-to-one relationship with each pesticide as it enters and leaves the US market. Generally, pesticide production precedes polio incidence by 1 to 2 years. I assume that this variation is due to variations in reporting methods and the time it takes to move pesticides from factory to warehouse, through distribution channels, onto the food crops and to the dinner table.

A composite of the three previous graphs, of the persistent pesticides -- lead, arsenic, and the dominant organochlorines (DDT and BHC) -- is represented in the following:


These four chemicals were not selected arbitrarily. These are representative of the major pesticides in use during the last major polio epidemic. They persist in the environment as neurotoxins that cause polio-like symptoms, polio-like physiology, and were dumped onto and into human food at dosage levels far above that approved by the FDA. They directly correlate with the incidence of various neurological diseases called "polio" before 1965. They were utilized, according to Biskind, in the "most intensive campaign of mass poisoning in known human history."
**

Source:

Everything You Learned About the Cause of Polio is Wrong

Everything you have learned about the true causes of polio may be wrong...

greenmedinfo.com

 

[Scott]

Your link contradicts itself. It claims viruses have never been isolated and then says what has been isolated has never been able to infect.

Could you quote what you're referring to, along with the link in question?

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.
...
Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification
have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing

Dr Bailey admits that particles have been isolated and then ignores all the evidence that those particles are viruses to instead argue that the particles can't be viruses because they don't act like bacteria.

First of all, from what I gather, Dr. Tom Cowan did most if not all of the writing of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. The Bailey doctors were signatories though, suggesting they agreed with everything written. Secondly, the statement doesn't say that biological viruses have to act like bacteria. It -is- saying that they have to fulfill the definition of a biological virus- part of that definition involves being able to replicate. If it can't do that, it can't be a biological virus.