Jump to content

Has the virus been isolated and does it exist?


MaryCochrane
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

I proved beyond doubt that viruses exists with 224 posts on the main thread

 

GeoffB doesn't understand what proof is. He doesn't understand epistemology. He doesn't understand the nature of scientific theorising and how it relates to reality.  And he doesn't understand logical inference. Nobody who did would ever claim to have "proved beyond doubt" some theoretical hypothesis.

 

It's a complete waste of time to argue with him.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Apotheosis said:

 

GeoffB doesn't understand what proof is. He doesn't understand epistemology. He doesn't understand the nature of scientific theorising and how it relates to reality.  And he doesn't understand logical inference. Nobody who did would ever claim to have "proved beyond doubt" some theoretical hypothesis.

 

It's a complete waste of time to argue with him.

It's not a "theoretical hypothesis" that viruses exist, it is a fact.

 

You're afraid to argue because you don't want your delusions and theoretical hypothesis that "viruses do not exist" shattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

It's not a "theoretical hypothesis" that viruses exist, it is a fact.

 

You're afraid to argue because you don't want your delusions and theoretical hypothesis that "viruses do not exist" shattered.

 

How do you explain this the? ...

 

[Lanka]:

Returning to Koch’s Postulates: No Isolation, No Purification

As I covered in COVID-19 Umbrella Term to Operate a Fake Pandemic: Not 1 Disease, Not 1 Cause, today’s mainstream scientists are skipping the all important 2nd step of Koch’s postulates: the isolation and purification of the virus. This isn’t something you can just gloss over or forget to do, like accidentally forgetting your umbrella on a rainy day and getting a bit wet. This is the absolutely quintessential part of determining if there is a new virus and if it causing causing disease. It’s the sine qua non. If you can’t isolate it, you have FAILED to prove anything, because the budding offshoot you think is an invading virus could easily be a exosome or particle being produced by the body itself. This is why all the COVID propaganda has conveniently glossed over the fact that there are no electron microscope images of SARS-CoV-2, since the electron microscope is an extremely important tool in the 1st step of Koch’s postulates, the identification.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

It's not a "theoretical hypothesis" that viruses exist, it is a fact.

 

You're afraid to argue because you don't want your delusions and theoretical hypothesis that "viruses do not exist" shattered.

 

Yes, the existence of viruses as conceived by virology is, just like that of historical speciation via evolution, the objects of the Standard Model of particle physics, the big bang of Big Bang cosmology, or the notion that the Sun is a giant ball of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion, a theoretical hypothesis. Viruses are not directly observable ; they are theoretical entities whose nature and existence is hypothesised with the intention of causally explaining a set of actually observable phenomena, whose members in this case include such things as the recurrence of a particular set of symptoms in different organisms,  cell lysis induced by introducing an "isolate" derived from a sick organism into a culture, structures found in electron micrographs of such cultures, RNA or DNA sequences constructed from such cultures, etc., many of which are themselves known only as instrumental effects. The existence of viruses cannot be logically deduced from any of these facts or an aggregation of them, and one cannot prove their existence.

 

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Edited by Apotheosis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

How do you explain this the? ...

 

[Lanka]:

Returning to Koch’s Postulates: No Isolation, No Purification

As I covered in COVID-19 Umbrella Term to Operate a Fake Pandemic: Not 1 Disease, Not 1 Cause, today’s mainstream scientists are skipping the all important 2nd step of Koch’s postulates: the isolation and purification of the virus. This isn’t something you can just gloss over or forget to do, like accidentally forgetting your umbrella on a rainy day and getting a bit wet. This is the absolutely quintessential part of determining if there is a new virus and if it causing causing disease. It’s the sine qua non. If you can’t isolate it, you have FAILED to prove anything, because the budding offshoot you think is an invading virus could easily be a exosome or particle being produced by the body itself. This is why all the COVID propaganda has conveniently glossed over the fact that there are no electron microscope images of SARS-CoV-2, since the electron microscope is an extremely important tool in the 1st step of Koch’s postulates, the identification.

 

 

 

Lanka has been totally discredited.

https://integralworld.net/visser175.html

 

Koch's Postulates are ancient history and have been modified in recent years to accept the discovery of viruses.

https://integralworld.net/visser184.html

 

Exosomes are similar but different to viruses. It has been shown that shed exosomes carry viral particles.

https://integralworld.net/visser171.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a point about if viruses exist or not.

But something intersting I've just learned about PCR tests.

They are based on "SARS-Cov-2 reference material", such as "commercial plasmid" which is usually synthetic in a lab setting and can actually be ordered online.

From my research SARS-Cov-2 reference material is NOT based on true patient sample, but all synthetic (based on what CDC and WHO publish).

This makes the case that the virus and it's diagonstics are all based on theoretical data. All we see are symptoms and statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Apotheosis said:

 

Yes, the existence of viruses as conceived by virology is, just like that of historical speciation via evolution, the objects of the Standard Model of particle physics, the big bang of Big Bang cosmology, or the notion that the Sun is a giant ball of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion, a theoretical hypothesis. Viruses are not directly observable ; they are theoretical entities whose nature and existence is hypothesised with the intention of causally explaining a set of actually observable phenomena, whose members in this case include such things as the recurrence of a particular set of symptoms in different organisms,  cell lysis induced by introducing an "isolate" derived from a sick organism into a culture, structures found in electron micrographs of such cultures, RNA or DNA sequences constructed from such cultures, etc., many of which are themselves known only as instrumental effects. The existence of viruses cannot be logically deduced from any of these facts or an aggregation of them, and one cannot prove their existence.

 

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

This article from yesterday neatly explains why viruses exist and why it is important that people in the "alternative media" start to accept the fact.

https://www.activistpost.com/2021/12/nobody-can-prove-the-nonexistence-of-viruses.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you're telling us to search the internet for papers and references which, presumably, you yourself have done.

 

The internet IS AWASH with DISINFORMATION. Nothing can be trusted! All papers and other research that matters was long ago censored or discredited. Countless $$$ billions have been distributed to buy out every scientist, doctor or researcher in a prominent position. Modern medicine relies on 'viruses' and other such nonsense to produce an endless stream of money from constantly ill patients. Successful careers have been destroyed by not following the party line.

 

So really there's no way for the common man to be able to do anything resembling unbiased research, which means that, to all intents and purposes, your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

 

Edited by webtrekker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

This article from yesterday neatly explains why viruses exist and why it is important that people in the "alternative media" start to accept the fact.

https://www.activistpost.com/2021/12/nobody-can-prove-the-nonexistence-of-viruses.html

 

That article means nothing to me.

 

For a start, who is the author Julie Beal? What are her qualifications? Where does she work? If a researcher, who funds her?

 

Why is there no extensive (or any!) list of references at the end of any of her articles?

 

It's all her OPINION. Not good enough for me I'm afaraid.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

That article means nothing to me.

 

For a start, who is the author Julie Beal? What are her qualifications? Where does she work? If a researcher, who funds her?

 

Why is there no extensive (or any!) list of references at the end of any of her articles?

 

It's all her OPINION. Not good enough for me I'm afaraid.

 

 

 

Well there was no point giving you articles or papers by "real" scientists as you would just dismiss them as being corrupted by money from Big Pharma.

 

Julie Beal is an independent English activist of 20 plus years, writing articles for Activist Post about Agenda21 and the Global Elite's plans against humankind. She is one of us, and like me she has researched the whole Corona scam and has come to the conclusion, with references, that the virus and all other viruses are real.

 

Here is a list of the articles she has written showing her credentials as a "conspiracy realist" something of which I am happy to call myself.

https://www.activistpost.com/tag/julie-beal

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

How do you explain this the? ...

 

[Lanka]:

Returning to Koch’s Postulates: No Isolation, No Purification

As I covered in COVID-19 Umbrella Term to Operate a Fake Pandemic: Not 1 Disease, Not 1 Cause, today’s mainstream scientists are skipping the all important 2nd step of Koch’s postulates: the isolation and purification of the virus. This isn’t something you can just gloss over or forget to do, like accidentally forgetting your umbrella on a rainy day and getting a bit wet. This is the absolutely quintessential part of determining if there is a new virus and if it causing causing disease. It’s the sine qua non. If you can’t isolate it, you have FAILED to prove anything, because the budding offshoot you think is an invading virus could easily be a exosome or particle being produced by the body itself. This is why all the COVID propaganda has conveniently glossed over the fact that there are no electron microscope images of SARS-CoV-2, since the electron microscope is an extremely important tool in the 1st step of Koch’s postulates, the identification.

 

 

 

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884

 

The world has moved on since 1884?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Nathan Oakley said:

Koch's postulates (/ˈkɔːx/)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884

 

The world has moved on since 1884?

 

The world has moved on? Logically sufficient criteria for establishing a causal relationship, which even Koch's postulates fail to be if we are strict, do not "move on". 

 

But let's take a look at some "updated" replacements for Koch's postulates. Let's take Fredericks and Relman's postulates form their 1996 paper Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates.

 

 

Quote

 

  1. A nucleic acid sequence belonging to a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease. Microbial nucleic acids should be found preferentially in those organs or gross anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in those organs that lack pathology.
  2. Fewer, or no, copy numbers of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease.
  3. With resolution of disease, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. With clinical relapse, the opposite should occur.
  4. When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship.
  5. The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms.
  6. Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level: efforts should be made to demonstrate specific in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located.
  7. These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible.

 

 

 

Which of these do you think is not consistent with being an effect of disease, or more to the point, is incompatible with something like a terrain theory of disease?

 

I will say none.

Edited by Apotheosis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Apotheosis said:

 

The world has moved on? Logically sufficient criteria for establishing a causal relationship, which even Koch's postulates fail to be if we are strict, do not "move on". 

 

But let's take a look at some "updated" replacements for Koch's postulates. Let's take Fredericks and Relman's postulates form their 1996 paper Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a reconsideration of Koch’s postulates.

 

 

 

 

Which of these do you think is not consistent with being an effect of disease, or more to the point, is incompatible with something like a terrain theory of disease?

 

I will say none.

 

So is chicken pox a virus or a bacteria?

And same with Rabies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeoffB said:

This article from yesterday neatly explains why viruses exist and why it is important that people in the "alternative media" start to accept the fact.

https://www.activistpost.com/2021/12/nobody-can-prove-the-nonexistence-of-viruses.html

 

Yes, this is the typical hand waving response of dogmatists in the face of skeptics to the fact that they cannot prove the truth of their assertions or demonstrate the reality of their scientific storytellingThey mention it in passing, bury it under a mountain of emotive language, and somehow think they've dealt with the problem. They have not.


Evidence is just data interpreted in light of the theory which is claimed to best explain that data.

 

Evidence is not theory-independent.

Evidence doesn't establish the truth of that theory's hypotheses.

And judging of the "best explanation" presupposes a theory of abduction.

 

And, dearest Bayesians, even if we could absolutely quantify probabilities of the truth of hypotheses as functions of their available evidence, which is a rather preposterous idea, this would give us nothing more than a frequency of being correct given such evidence; it would still tell us nothing about the truth status of the particular case. If you want to call that "the rational degree of belief" in your story, go ahead, it has no demonstrable relationship to the truth of the story other than the frequentist one.

 

 

 

Quote

 

*“If anyone asks you “Prove something exists”… You should ask “Tell me the set of testable conditions that are required to prove existence”. This is much like asking for the set of axioms before proving any theory. You need axioms for any kind of proof. …..  A question like, How can I prove something exists? must be placed in a context. Who is asking, and what will they accept as proof?

In an ordinary everyday sort of way, it might be answered by saying that something is the object of our senses: I can prove this apple exists because I can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it. In less simple examples, one might use indirect evidence – I can’t prove that Australia exists by sensing it, since it is a long way away from me, but I could point to photographs, books about it, people who have been there, beer that has been brewed there, etc.

 

 

 

Are your quora advisors logical positivists? No shit, we can play word games like this all day long. Words like "proof of existence" can be defined any which way we like to "prove the existence" of anything whatsoever. The question here is, how does this proof relate to reality. And there's a rather significant ontological distinction between a fucking continent and an invisible theoretical entity postulated to causally explain "disease" and all the instrumental phenomena you are putting forward as your "testable conditions" for sufficient evidence of "existence". I don't need your "virus" to be real in order to account for any of this.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Apotheosis said:

 

Yes, this is the typical hand waving response of dogmatists in the face of skeptics to the fact that they cannot prove the truth of their assertions or demonstrate the reality of their scientific storytellingThey mention it in passing, bury it under a mountain of emotive language, and somehow think they've dealt with the problem. They have not.


Evidence is just data interpreted in light of the theory which is claimed to best explain that data.

 

Evidence is not theory-independent.

Evidence doesn't establish the truth of that theory's hypotheses.

And judging of the "best explanation" presupposes a theory of abduction.

 

And, dearest Bayesians, even if we could absolutely quantify probabilities of the truth of hypotheses as functions of their available evidence, which is a rather preposterous idea, this would give us nothing more than a frequency of being correct given such evidence; it would still tell us nothing about the truth status of the particular case. If you want to call that "the rational degree of belief" in your story, go ahead, it has no demonstrable relationship to the truth of the story other than the frequentist one.

 

 

 

 

 

Are your quora advisors logical positivists? No shit, we can play word games like this all day long. Words like "proof of existence" can be defined any which way we like to "prove the existence" of anything whatsoever. The question here is, how does this proof relate to reality. And there's a rather significant ontological distinction between a fucking continent and an invisible theoretical entity postulated to causally explain "disease" and all the instrumental phenomena you are putting forward as your "testable conditions" for sufficient evidence of "existence". I don't need your "virus" to be real in order to account for any of this.

 

 

 

Your need to be in a tiny group of people who "have" to believe in something which has been proved to be wrong speaks volumes about you.

 

The rest of us who know that SARS-CoV-2 is real, probably created in a lab and probably deliberately released on humankind are left to fight this Covid hoax and tyranny whilst you and the rest of the "viruses do not exist" zealots disappear up your own backsides and become irrelevant and an embarrassment to those of us trying to put a stop to this power grab by the Global Elite.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:

 

Weill thanks for that articulate reply to my question about whether or not viruses cause disease.

 

Could you expand a little with some evidence?

 

 

 

 

So have you had chicken pox or not? It would be interesting to know if you have ever had an encounter with a so called virus. Maybe you have lived a very sheltered life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me Nathan,

 

This thread is not about my medical history, for all your strange efforts to make it so.

 

Has covid 19 been isolated ?

 

Yes it has - it has been isolated  in -silico  - on a computer screen.

 

The more pressing question is what is the function of a virus?

 

With trillions of them everywhere, in our soil, our bodies, our pets ,since time immemorial  only an idiot would believe that they are dangerous.

 

Yet, you and Geoff B seem to think  they are

 

 

Edited by MarcusOmouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2021 at 9:54 PM, GeoffB said:

Your need to be in a tiny group of people who "have" to believe in something which has been proved to be wrong speaks volumes about you.

 

The rest of us who know that SARS-CoV-2 is real, probably created in a lab and probably deliberately released on humankind are left to fight this Covid hoax and tyranny whilst you and the rest of the "viruses do not exist" zealots disappear up your own backsides and become irrelevant and an embarrassment to those of us trying to put a stop to this power grab by the Global Elite.

“Created in a lab” utter bullshit. There is no virus. Bit of a shit bio weapon. 2 years to wipe out oldies at the same rate as them dying of old age. Smoke and mirrors Geoff smoke and mirrors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcusOmouse said:

Excuse me Nathan,

 

This thread is not about my medical history, for all your strange efforts to make it so.

 

Has covid 19 been isolated ?

 

Yes it has - it has been isolated  in -silico  - on a computer screen.

 

The more pressing question is what is the function of a virus?

 

With trillions of them everywhere, in our soil, our bodies, our pets ,since time immemorial  only an idiot would believe that they are dangerous.

 

Yet, you and Geoff B seem to think  they are

 

 

I'm glad you agree viruses exist.

They have also been isolated in the scientific sense.

Some cause disease, most don't.

SARS-CoV-2 virus causes a mild disease Covid which has been blown out of all proportion by the Global Elite to bring in draconian powers of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Yoyo said:

“Created in a lab” utter bullshit. There is no virus. Bit of a shit bio weapon. 2 years to wipe out oldies at the same rate as them dying of old age. Smoke and mirrors Geoff smoke and mirrors.

You can bask in your ignorance that "viruses do not exist".

I didn't say SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon to kill off lots of people.

It was most likely an "economic bio-weapon" to cause harm to the Chinese economy and unlike it's cousin SARS it unexpectantly spread worldwide and as you say it killed off some old people who were about to die anyway but was used as an excuse for a "Great Reset".

Ron Unz has an excellent series of articles explaining the most likely course of events accusing rogue elements of the US Deep State of releasing the virus.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-covid-epidemic-as-lab-leak-or-biowarfare/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...