APP - Do biological viruses actually exist?

[ZenMode]

First of all, I believe there is a growing number of people who are at least skeptical that biological viruses are the terrible threat that the mainstream media makes them out to be. I also believe there is a growing number of people like me who have decided there is no solid evidence that biological viruses exist. As to why I and others have had a change of heart in regards to the strength of biological viruses and even the notion that they exist at all, I'd say it has a lot to do with what we were taught when we were young. So, what causes people to change their mind on such things? Examining the evidence regarding biological viruses with a critical eye.

That is another non-response "response" to my question of what would be required for the world to be duped.

 

[ZenMode]

In regard to COVID, I'd like to know how a grand conspiracy didn't exist.

Over a weekend, multiple independent and generally competing, companies, around the world, all did their own independent analysis of the Covid virus and developed a COVID vaccine. They all performed clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people to test the effectiveness of the vaccine and all had data on the results. Multiple independent and often competing companies developed and tested products to test individuals for Covid. Case and mortality data was collected from hundreds of thousands of medical entities and reported around the world. Governments around the world tracked that data and made decisions on restrictions/lockdowns.

So, explain how all of the independent medical and government entities made this happen just by chance, with no coordination.

For example, how did the people conducting the clinical trials and collecting data all just happen to get on the same page? They all had to fake data, but all did it on their own initiative ?

@Scott

This is the question that you are intentionally avoiding, which I have asked at least 3x.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, they were. But more importantly, it's rather important that 1, the CDC apparently admits that the lab test is unreliable and 2, the test is apparently saved mainly if not exclusively for the unvaccinated. Once again quoting from Mike Stone's article:
**
The CDC admits that it is difficult to diagnose any vaccinated person with measles due to the unreliability of the tests. Perhaps this is why most vaccinated individuals are presumed “immune” to measles and testing is saved for the unvaccinated? Regardless, the CDC acknowledges that even if a measles case is seen at a physician’s office, it is most likely not a “true” measles case even if it meets the clinical definition. The only reason to suspect measles is if the person is unvaccinated and came into contact with traveler's from abroad. Granted, the CDC does say that cases of “high suspicion” should be investigated. However, this is only if other causes have been ruled out first, such as parvovirus, dengue, Kawasaki disease, scarlet fever, and rubella.

“In the measles post-elimination era, most cases of febrile rash illness seen in physician’s offices that meet the clinical case definition will not be measles. However, health care providers should maintain a high index of suspicion for measles in clinically compatible cases especially among unvaccinated persons and among persons who recently traveled abroad or who have had contact with persons such as travelers or international visitors. In addition, not every sporadic measles case is linked to a known importation, so cases that raise high suspicion of measles, irrespective of associated risk factors, should be investigated for measles unless an alternative diagnosis is likely (e.g., known epidemiological link to a parvovirus case).

It is important to consider measles in the differential diagnoses of parvovirus, dengue, Kawasaki disease, and scarlet fever. In addition, when evaluating patients with suspected measles who have negative tests for acute measles infection, additional testing for rubella can be considered."

The list of potential diagnoses for the same symptoms of disease is much longer than what the CDC provided. Going back to the MN Department of Health, a more comprehensive list of diseases, both “infectious” and “non-infectious,” presenting with measles-like symptoms is outlined. As these diseases all have similar features to measles, they all must be ruled out before a measles diagnosis can be made and “confirmed:”
“Providers should also consider other infectious and non-infectious etiologies that may cause fever and generalized rash, including:

• Rubella, Scarlet fever, Roseola infantum, Kawasaki disease, Erythema infectiosum (Fifth Disease), Coxsackievirus, Echovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, Pharyngoconjunctival fever, Influenza
• Dengue, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Zika virus
• Dermatologic manifestations of Viral hemorrhagic fevers
• Toxic Shock Syndrome, cutaneous syphilis
• Drug reactions (e.g., antibiotics, contact dermatitis)

As can be seen from the above information, we are left with quite a few preconditions that must be satisfied in order for a new measles outbreak to be declared.

1. The CDC must issue an alert for healthcare workers to start looking for measles cases.
2. Testing should be limited to those who meet the case definition and are unvaccinated, have a recent history of travel abroad, and are without an alternate explanation for symptoms.
3. Those with a history of previous measles “infection” or vaccination should be presumed to be “immune.”
4. Many clinicians do not know what a measles case looks like, so clinical diagnosis is unreliable, and it must be “confirmed” via unreliable tests.
5. The long list of similar diseases presenting with the same symptoms must be ruled out via differential diagnosis first before “confirming” a measles case.
6. A suspected measles case in someone vaccinated must meet the clinical case definition and be linked to a laboratory case in order to be a “confirmed” case.

With these preconditions firmly established, it is easy to see how the CDC can manufacture and steer a measles outbreak so that it appears as if it was instigated from outside of the US and spread through the unvaccinated. All they need is to alert clinicians in order to have them identify anyone unvaccinated who presents with nonspecific symptoms, such as a fever and a rash, that may have recently been a traveler or been in contact with one. They can then use unreliable laboratory tests to “confirm” that the case is measles rather than any of the other identical conditions it would have been pegged as prior to the alert. If someone who is vaccinated slips through as a suspected case, they make it difficult to confirm them as a measles case by blaming the unreliable tests and the vaccinated status and/or the presumed “immunity.” Thus, a measles outbreak can be steered away from the vaccinated and pinned on any unvaccinated individual when they would have normally been diagnosed with any of the other conditions presenting with a fever, a maculopapular rash, and nonspecific symptoms of disease. Voila! The CDC gets to declare a measles “outbreak” in the unvaccinated instigated from contact coming outside from an “endemic” country. Now that the curtain has pulled back, and the trick has been exposed, it is time to cancel this magic show once and for all.
**

Source:

Measles Magic

Pulling back the curtain.

mikestone.substack.com

Why can't you make any reasonable argument on your own? Why do you simply resort to posting the same things I have shown to be fallacious?
Are you unable to understand logic? Are you unable to understand simple arguments?

When diagnosing illness, the best course of action is to eliminate the most likely ones before testing for measles. Measles is rare. Measles isn't found by eliminating other illnesses. Measles is found by doing scientific testing. There is no reason to do that testing until other possible illnesses have been eliminated as a possible source. If a car comes in with a knocking noise, the mechanic doesn't first check the transmission. As in any logic or scientific process, you eliminate other possible reasons first.

The argument made by your source is ridiculous in that they fail to understand how anything works in the real world. Multiple illnesses have similar symptoms because the body uses similar techniques to fight those multiple illnesses. This would be like making the ridiculous argument that colds don't exist because they have similar symptoms to the flu.