I've relied heavily on the work of researchers and medical doctor signatories of the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. I've actually made 2 threads here on whether biological viruses are real. The first I made in the general forum back in 2022. It can be seen here:

Recently, I came to believe that because of the invective that usually comes with discussing this topic, it would be better to talk about it in the Above Plain Politics, where invective is kept to a minimum. That thread can be seen here:

I have been known to respond a bit in the old thread, especially if someone is fairly civilized and doesn't have access to the APP forum.
Sounds like you are doing your own research. What is your background? Are you biologist/virologist by degree?

No, I studied computer programming and then computer networking- didn't finish either course. I currently teach English. I got into virology because of Covid. Prior to that, I believed in biological viruses like most people. During Covid, I did some work for a journalist who used to specialize in the medical field and she let me know that there were some who no longer believed in biological viruses. I remember telling her that it sounded too good to be true. But soon after, perhaps in part because of her comment, I started to research the subject, first focusing on the alleged Cov 2 virus but finally opening up to the possibility that biological viruses didn't exist, full stop. It took me about a year to be persuaded by the researchers that I mentioned previously, but by the end of that period, I came to believe they were right.
 
Are you suggesting that your article of around 13 paragraphs is proof that "[t]he majority of the scientific community in the field do not agree with your professionals on the mRNA studies"?
It is proof that the majority in the field support it.

I didn't see the article even -try- to claim that "the majority of the scientific community in the field" don't agree with the professionals that talk in the mRNA documentary. Could you quote where you think this article does so?
 
I didn't see the article even -try- to claim that "the majority of the scientific community in the field" don't agree with the professionals that talk in the mRNA documentary. Could you quote where you think this article does so?
Lol, then show your evidence that 80 agencies in 40 countries isn’t the majority.
 
Are you suggesting that your article of around 13 paragraphs is proof that "[t]he majority of the scientific community in the field do not agree with your professionals on the mRNA studies"?
It is proof that the majority in the field support it.
I didn't see the article even -try- to claim that "the majority of the scientific community in the field" don't agree with the professionals that talk in the mRNA documentary. Could you quote where you think this article does so?
Lol, then show your evidence that 80 agencies in 40 countries isn’t the majority.

You apparently forgot how this conversation began. You claimed that "[t]he majority of the scientific community in the field do not agree with your professionals on the mRNA studies". I asked if you could prove it. You linked to an article that didn't even claim what you claimed, let alone make any attempt to prove it. It is my hope that I have taught you something- be careful what you claim. It can come back to haunt you.
 
You apparently forgot how this conversation began. You claimed that "[t]he majority of the scientific community in the field do not agree with your professionals on the mRNA studies". I asked if you could prove it. You linked to an article that didn't even claim what you claimed, let alone make any attempt to prove it. It is my hope that I have taught you something- be careful what you claim. It can come back to haunt you.
Again 80 agencies in 40 countries. Now you show your evidence that the majority don’t support nRNA research and development.

Here’s another

 
I disagree. I've decided that pursuing the subject of germ theory might be worthwhile in a thread format. So I've made the following thread for the subject:

Feel free to make any comments on germ theory in that thread.

I will admit to being fascinated by people with zero expertise in a field who take a position that is against that which the vast majority of experts actually believes.

I've seen it in creationists, COVID skeptics, climate change skeptics etc. While one of the chief values of science is that it encourages people to "question" the received wisdom, I think what so many people forget is that questioning from a position of pure ignorance doesn't make the questions "insightful".

So I again ask: what is your background such that you feel confident going against the vast majority of the earth's scientists?
 
You apparently forgot how this conversation began. You claimed that "[t]he majority of the scientific community in the field do not agree with your professionals on the mRNA studies". I asked if you could prove it. You linked to an article that didn't even claim what you claimed, let alone make any attempt to prove it. It is my hope that I have taught you something- be careful what you claim. It can come back to haunt you.
Again 80 agencies in 40 countries.
You seem to be saying that that assertion proves that "the majority of the scientific community in the field" believe that mRNA vaccines are "safe and effective". It doesn't. By the way, it's 80 research labs, not 80 agencies.

Now you show your evidence that the majority don’t support nRNA research and development.

Phantasmal, when did I ever say I had evidence that "the majority don't support mRNA research and development"? Hopefully you are beginning to realize the wisdom in being careful as to the claims you make.

Here’s another


That article is referring to the same group as your first link. Since this seems to be the only large organization that you seem able to find, I decided to look at who founded it. From Wikipedia:
**
The Global Virus Network (GVN) is an international coalition of medical virologists whose goal is to help the international medical community by improving the detection and management of viral diseases. The network was founded in 2011 by Robert Gallo in collaboration with William Hall and Reinhard Kurth, and 24 countries were members of the network as of 2015.
**

I decided to look into the first founder on that list, Robert Gallo. Here's what I found:
**

Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo

The second book is the exact opposite in its tone and style, and I warmly recommend reading it. Only that Crewdson’s 2002 book is out of print (are you surprised?) and can only be bought used or from leftover stocks. Hurry up while it still exists.

Crewdson’s book is easily readable and engaging. The cancer researcher turned virologist Robert Gallo was a big star of NIH, and he almost got the 2008 Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV and for the developing of an AIDS blood test. Almost, because thanks to intrepid investigators, Gallo and his subordinate Mikulas Popovic were exposed as thieves. In the 1980ies, the two gentlemen used the AIDS-causing virus (then known as LAV), provided to them by their French collaborators at the Institute Pasteur, to be the first to claim the discovery of the so-called HTLV3 retrovirus, which later was renamed to HIV. Gallo also patented a blood test based on the stolen LAV, which he monopolised for USA and marketed together with the company Abbott, getting filthily rich in the process. Crewdson explains that the Gallo-Abbott blood test was faulty, providing both false positive and false negatives, which, among other things, cost the lives of many haemophiliacs in USA who received HIV-infected blood. And yet Gallo, NIH and US government fought tooth and nail to keep the French competitor blood test out of the US market, and succeeded for several years, with full support from Ronald Reagan’s White House.

Reading Crewdson’s book reminded me of Paolo Macchiarini, a pathological liar just as Gallo. Both use the art of unashamed bullshittery as their main weapon, to silence critics and to get what they want, and Gallo can really talk like a machine gun, even now in his very old age. I however doubt that Gallo is physiologically able of saying anything true, and he also seems to be an abysmally bad (even if very successful) scientist. Gallo rose to fame by discovering HTLV1 in 1970ies, a lymphoma causing retrovirus originally found in Japan, and it is not clear how much of the discovery is Gallo’s own and how much of his Japanese colleagues. From there on, Gallo decided to prove that all cancers are virus-caused and set out to find more cancer causing genes, failing every time.

Just when he was to about to be disregarded as the bullshitter he is, the AIDS pandemic arrived. Gallo threw his Bethesda lab’s resources onto it, but failed to isolate the AIDS virus because he was looking for something resembling HTLV1. Yet HIV is a different kind of retrovirus, a lentivirus namely. Somehow however, the LAV virus isolated and grown from French AIDS patient was sent to Gallo by Institut Pasteur and ended in the hands of Popovic. The two Bethesda researchers renamed it into HTLV3 and used it to publish in 1984 no less than FOUR back-to-back papers in Science (eg, Popovic et al 1984), and to patent a blood test. When asked where they got their HTLV3 from, Gallo lied and lied and lied, saying one thing one day and another thing another day, while refusing to admit that his HTLV3 was actually Pasteur’s LAV. Popovic simply hid behind Gallo, and never shared the fraud evidence he had secured, well aware that if they both fall, he will fall the hardest, and sent back to socialist Czechoslovakia which he fled many years ago.

Otherwise, how to explain that the only reproducible scientific discovery Gallo ever made since HTLV1, was the HIV virus he stole from the Pasteur Institute, and the rest in between and ever since was just bullshit upon bullshit? If only Gallo just stole someone’s results “faithfully”, but no, he had to twist these stolen results into his own utterly false scientific theories on retroviruses, and he also used his immense academic power to bully and silence scientists whose real findings disagreed with his unreal fabulations. Gallo’s bullshit polluted the fields of HIV, virology and cancer research for years and decades, the damage he caused to advance his greed and his narcissistic ego cannot be calculated, neither in dollars nor in human lives. But he still has many admirers, who cried about his not getting the Nobel Prize in 2009, including a certain Giorgio Zauli in Italy.

Obviously neither Gallo nor Popovic were officially guilty of fraud, but everyone knew they were, even if there never was a single retraction to their names. Thus, Gallo was ordered to bugger off from NIH and Bethesda, as it happened he was offered his own institute by the University of Maryland, which he gladly accepted and took Popovic with him. The two gentleman are still there, Gallo is in fact quite active on Twitter and media, science journalists very much respect his expert opinions, for example on how to cure COVID-19.

**

Source:

As you know, I don't believe in biological viruses, but I certainly find it humorous that even amoung people who do, there are those who've seen how deceptive Mr. Gallo is.
 
I disagree. I've decided that pursuing the subject of germ theory might be worthwhile in a thread format. So I've made the following thread for the subject:

Feel free to make any comments on germ theory in that thread.
I will admit to being fascinated by people with zero expertise in a field who take a position that is against that which the vast majority of experts actually believes.

For the audience, I've responded to gmark in the new thread I created for the subject, specifically here:
 
I will admit to being fascinated by people with zero expertise in a field who take a position that is against that which the vast majority of experts actually believes.

I've seen it in creationists, COVID skeptics, climate change skeptics etc. While one of the chief values of science is that it encourages people to "question" the received wisdom, I think what so many people forget is that questioning from a position of pure ignorance doesn't make the questions "insightful".

So I again ask: what is your background such that you feel confident going against the vast majority of the earth's scientists?
Apparently, he doesn’t believe the majority of virologist support germ theory, mRNA research and vaccines. His theories are in the minority and support pseudoscience.
 
You seem to be saying that that assertion proves that "the majority of the scientific community in the field" believe that mRNA vaccines are "safe and effective". It doesn't. By the way, it's 80 research labs, not 80 agencies.



Phantasmal, when did I ever say I had evidence that "the majority don't support mRNA research and development"? Hopefully you are beginning to realize the wisdom in being careful as to the claims you make.



That article is referring to the same group as your first link. Since this seems to be the only large organization that you seem able to find, I decided to look at who founded it. From Wikipedia:
**
The Global Virus Network (GVN) is an international coalition of medical virologists whose goal is to help the international medical community by improving the detection and management of viral diseases. The network was founded in 2011 by Robert Gallo in collaboration with William Hall and Reinhard Kurth, and 24 countries were members of the network as of 2015.
**

I decided to look into the first founder on that list, Robert Gallo. Here's what I found:
**

Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo

The second book is the exact opposite in its tone and style, and I warmly recommend reading it. Only that Crewdson’s 2002 book is out of print (are you surprised?) and can only be bought used or from leftover stocks. Hurry up while it still exists.

Crewdson’s book is easily readable and engaging. The cancer researcher turned virologist Robert Gallo was a big star of NIH, and he almost got the 2008 Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV and for the developing of an AIDS blood test. Almost, because thanks to intrepid investigators, Gallo and his subordinate Mikulas Popovic were exposed as thieves. In the 1980ies, the two gentlemen used the AIDS-causing virus (then known as LAV), provided to them by their French collaborators at the Institute Pasteur, to be the first to claim the discovery of the so-called HTLV3 retrovirus, which later was renamed to HIV. Gallo also patented a blood test based on the stolen LAV, which he monopolised for USA and marketed together with the company Abbott, getting filthily rich in the process. Crewdson explains that the Gallo-Abbott blood test was faulty, providing both false positive and false negatives, which, among other things, cost the lives of many haemophiliacs in USA who received HIV-infected blood. And yet Gallo, NIH and US government fought tooth and nail to keep the French competitor blood test out of the US market, and succeeded for several years, with full support from Ronald Reagan’s White House.

Reading Crewdson’s book reminded me of Paolo Macchiarini, a pathological liar just as Gallo. Both use the art of unashamed bullshittery as their main weapon, to silence critics and to get what they want, and Gallo can really talk like a machine gun, even now in his very old age. I however doubt that Gallo is physiologically able of saying anything true, and he also seems to be an abysmally bad (even if very successful) scientist. Gallo rose to fame by discovering HTLV1 in 1970ies, a lymphoma causing retrovirus originally found in Japan, and it is not clear how much of the discovery is Gallo’s own and how much of his Japanese colleagues. From there on, Gallo decided to prove that all cancers are virus-caused and set out to find more cancer causing genes, failing every time.

Just when he was to about to be disregarded as the bullshitter he is, the AIDS pandemic arrived. Gallo threw his Bethesda lab’s resources onto it, but failed to isolate the AIDS virus because he was looking for something resembling HTLV1. Yet HIV is a different kind of retrovirus, a lentivirus namely. Somehow however, the LAV virus isolated and grown from French AIDS patient was sent to Gallo by Institut Pasteur and ended in the hands of Popovic. The two Bethesda researchers renamed it into HTLV3 and used it to publish in 1984 no less than FOUR back-to-back papers in Science (eg, Popovic et al 1984), and to patent a blood test. When asked where they got their HTLV3 from, Gallo lied and lied and lied, saying one thing one day and another thing another day, while refusing to admit that his HTLV3 was actually Pasteur’s LAV. Popovic simply hid behind Gallo, and never shared the fraud evidence he had secured, well aware that if they both fall, he will fall the hardest, and sent back to socialist Czechoslovakia which he fled many years ago.

Otherwise, how to explain that the only reproducible scientific discovery Gallo ever made since HTLV1, was the HIV virus he stole from the Pasteur Institute, and the rest in between and ever since was just bullshit upon bullshit? If only Gallo just stole someone’s results “faithfully”, but no, he had to twist these stolen results into his own utterly false scientific theories on retroviruses, and he also used his immense academic power to bully and silence scientists whose real findings disagreed with his unreal fabulations. Gallo’s bullshit polluted the fields of HIV, virology and cancer research for years and decades, the damage he caused to advance his greed and his narcissistic ego cannot be calculated, neither in dollars nor in human lives. But he still has many admirers, who cried about his not getting the Nobel Prize in 2009, including a certain Giorgio Zauli in Italy.

Obviously neither Gallo nor Popovic were officially guilty of fraud, but everyone knew they were, even if there never was a single retraction to their names. Thus, Gallo was ordered to bugger off from NIH and Bethesda, as it happened he was offered his own institute by the University of Maryland, which he gladly accepted and took Popovic with him. The two gentleman are still there, Gallo is in fact quite active on Twitter and media, science journalists very much respect his expert opinions, for example on how to cure COVID-19.

**

Source:

As you know, I don't believe in biological viruses, but I certainly find it humorous that even amoung people who do, there are those who've seen how deceptive Mr. Gallo is.
So, you agree the majority of virologist support mRNA research and vaccines, good to know.

My work is done here.
 
American Society of Virology largest organization of virologist, 2,500 members support mRNA research and vaccines.

“The American Society for Virology (ASV) has grown to a membership of over 2,500 members, primarily from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, with increasing international membership. The society was founded in 1981 and has become one of the largest virology societies in the world. Cornell University Wikipedia

The American Society for Virology supports mRNA research as part of its commitment to advancing the field of virology and public health. This includes promoting the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines, which have been recognized as significant biomedical innovations in responding to viral threats. University of Minnesota EurekAlert
 
For the audience, I've responded to gmark in the new thread I created for the subject, specifically here:
Are you scared to admit you have no expertise in this field and therefore everything you post is just your opinion?

I was just trying to separate the subject of germ theory from the subject of mRNA vaccines, which is the topic of this particular thread. I have responded to your response in the germ theory thread. For anyone in the audience who would like to see our conversation there, here's the link:
 
American Society of Virology largest organization of virologist, 2,500 members support mRNA research and vaccines.

Alright. Are you suggesting that this means that the "the majority of the scientific community in the field" believe that mRNA vaccines should continue to be distributed at this time? I just realized something- we haven't even defined what would constitute the "scientific community in the field". Does it include doctors who are actually treating patients who experienced injuries, apparently from mRNA vaccines or are they not "scientific" enough?
 
I was just trying to separate the subject of germ theory from the subject of mRNA vaccines, which is the topic of this particular thread.

But if you start off by taking out the central theory of disease which has seen a near doubling of human lifespans in a couple generations then I am prone to question anything you say about more complex and relatively newer technologies in this field.

If I came on here to tell you your car was about to explode and kill you and it becomes clear that I don't even know what a "car" is let alone how one works or anything about them, how likely are you to assume my warning to you is accurate.


 
Back
Top