Jump to content

Has the virus been isolated and does it exist?


MaryCochrane
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, GeoffB said:

There are thousands of scientific papers proving viral germ theory.

 

There are thousands of photographs of viral particles proving viral germ theory.

 

There are millions of whole gene sequences proving viral germ theory.

Yes, yes. That's wonderful. We all trust big pharma.

 

ghost written papers

Photos of chemically damaged and dead cells

Programmed computer systems 

 

✌️

Fraud, omissions, corruption, data redaction. Sooo boring now 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Nathan Oakley said:

 

Anthrax is causes by a bacteria - an inert microparticle. I guess that isnt true either?

 

Have you got something against microparticles - something of a size queen are we? :-)

Bacteria are minute LIVING organisms.

 

Just like parasites.

 

The above are both ALIVE.

 

Viruses are inert ( none living ) bits of matter.

 

You need to make and understand the  distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zArk said:

Yes, yes. That's wonderful. We all trust big pharma.

 

ghost written papers

Photos of chemically damaged and dead cells

Programmed computer systems 

 

✌️

Fraud, omissions, corruption, data redaction. Sooo boring now 

 

 

No we don't trust Big Pharma.

That doesn't mean viruses do not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcusOmouse said:

Bacteria are minute LIVING organisms.

 

Just like parasites.

 

The above are both ALIVE.

 

Viruses are inert ( none living ) bits of matter.

 

You need to make and understand the  distinction.

Viruses are a quirk of nature and there is scientific debate on whether they are alive or not.

You need to make and understand the distinction that viruses exist.

Edited by GeoffB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

I wasn't talking about Lanka. How do you explain Enders' statement (as pictured in the video)?

 

 

 

The video by a Russian nobody is total rubbish.

Scientists have  known for a long time that you can't isolate or purify a virus in the dictionary sense of the words.

Mock controls in modern virology are done all the time.

Viral infected cells are not starved of nutrients, exactly the opposite, they are given nutrients to keep them alive.

This so-called experiment by Lanka was in April 2021, written up in his own magazine, and totally debunked by scientists who, unlike Lanka, understand virology.

They didn't dismiss it because they were trying to hide anything, they dismissed it because it was rubbish.

If it was so important that it would "change virology forever" why has nothing been heard about it since April 2021?

The answer is that it was rubbish.

You asked me to comment specifically on Enders.

His experiments were in the 1950's and totally irrelevant today.

Why do you think there has been no advancement in virology in almost 70 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then, we're getting nowhere here. You have such a high opinion of your views that you must be someone with many qualifications, perhaps a virolgist, epidemiologist, doctor, gubberment research scientist, .........? What exactly are your qualifications? (Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please).

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

11 hours ago, webtrekker said:

Ok then, we're getting nowhere here. You have such a high opinion of your views that you must be someone with many qualifications, perhaps a virolgist, epidemiologist, doctor, gubberment research scientist, .........? What exactly are your qualifications? (Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please).

What qualifications do you have to dismiss the claims made by eminent and highly qualified doctors, scientists, virologists and epidemiologists over the last 150 years that viruses exist?

(Answers on the back of a postage stamp please).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

What qualifications do you have to dismiss the claims made by eminent and highly qualified doctors, scientists, virologists and epidemiologists over the last 150 years that viruses exist?

(Answers on the back of a postage stamp please).

 

Exactly! We both know very little and rely on the views of 'experts' that will say almost anything to support their egos and careers.

 

We just have to pick what sounds reasonable to ourselves and run with it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

Exactly! We both know very little and rely on the views of 'experts' that will say almost anything to support their egos and careers.

 

We just have to pick what sounds reasonable to ourselves and run with it.

 

 

 

After leaving grammar school with basic qualifications I entered further education to obtain a professional qualification to enhance my career in engineering.

 

It soon dawned on me that the main stream media reporting of world events was a one sided affair and I sought out contrarian views.

 

I shunned formal education because it is just one opinion not many opinions and not necessarily the right opinion on what was really happening.

 

20 years ago I started following David Icke for an extreme view of the world around us and he has normally been right.

 

I am also well read on philosophical and alternative views.

 

To understand scientific papers and scientific principles one has to have some basic knowledge of which I am self taught.

 

I have seen the work of Lanka, Kaufman, Cowan, Bailey etc. and have learnt enough to dismiss their claims.

 

I am aware of the importance of keeping an open mind but when something like the claim that "viruses do not exist" comes along which can easily be refuted it has to be challenged because it is harming the fight against this global tyranny.

 

When you look at the four main people above proposing it they are a failed marine biologist, a failed psychiatrist, a failed medic who had to hand in his license and another failed medic being investigated by the health authorities in New Zealand. All of them have books, pills, lotions and potions to sell to the gullible.

 

You and I probably agree on many things but this notion that "viruses do not exist" is just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2021 at 5:49 PM, Nathan Oakley said:

 

So is chicken pox a virus or a bacteria?

And same with Rabies

 

Answer the question.

 

Which of Frederick and Relman's postulates do you think is not consistent with being an effect of disease or is incompatible a terrain theory of disease?

 

Since the world has "moved on" since the days of Robert Koch, which modern criteria for supposedly demonstrating the existence of a virus as the causal agent of a disease do you think are logically sufficient for the purpose?

 

Quote

 

So is chicken pox a virus or a bacteria?

 

 

 

Do you beat your wife with your belt or your fists?

 

I'm not the one claiming to have "explained" the symptomatic phenomena associated with the idea of "chicken pox". That's the germ camp. 

 

I will tell you that 

1. Chicken pox is overwhelmingly a childhood disease that sets on within a few years of weaning from breast milk.

2. Administration of breast milk can alleviate the symptoms of chicken pox.

3. English milk maids usually didn't get smallpox.

 

Unlike your theories, these are facts. And their usefulness is totally theory independent.

 

Quote

And same with Rabies

 

 

 

Lol. Do you even understand HOW Pasteur achieved his results "demonstrating" that rabies was transmitted by bite via a virus in saliva?

 

HE FAILED to give healthy dogs rabies when he took saliva from rabid dogs and INJECTED it into the animal's bloodstreams (because that's a "realistic" model of a dog bite ... *facepalm*).

 

So he then injected it in massive quantities DIRECTLY into their brains. This was his "proof". And you are mentally retarded if you accept it as such.

 

And this is exactly reminiscent of pedophile boy rapist Gajdusek's "discovery" of kuru being caused by eating diseased brains which won him a Nobel Prize. He FAILED to cause kuru in monkeys by feeding them diseased brains. He FAILED to cause it by injecting them with diseased brain tissue. So he bored holes into their skulls and deposited the brain tissue directly into their brains. They then went mad and died. This was his "proof" that kuru was an infectious disease caused by consuming diseased brains. Apparently the Nobel Prize committee are as conversant in epistemology as you lot.

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

4 hours ago, GeoffB said:

What qualifications do you have to dismiss the claims made by eminent and highly qualified doctors, scientists, virologists and epidemiologists over the last 150 years that viruses exist?

(Answers on the back of a postage stamp please).

 

Qualifications are not a substitute for argument. Self-serving standards of "evidence" are not a substitute for existential proof. Unprovable claims are not a substitute for truth. "Probability" is not a substitute for knowledge of the particular.

 

Quote

I am also well read on philosophical and alternative views.

 

You clearly are not well-read in academic philosophy or the philosophy of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2021 at 9:16 AM, GeoffB said:

There are thousands of scientific papers proving viral germ theory.

 

There are thousands of photographs of viral particles proving viral germ theory.

 

There are millions of whole gene sequences proving viral germ theory.

 

 

You referred us to an article, an article YOU gave your approval to, which repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms the author's own belief that "viral germ theory" CANNOT be proved.

 

Yet here you are telling us that "viral germ theory" is something PROVEN.

 

Is this a lapse of memory? Is it an incapacity for logical consistence? Or are you just a dishonest piece of shit with an agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Apotheosis said:

 

 

You referred us to an article, an article YOU gave your approval to, which repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms the author's own belief that "viral germ theory" CANNOT be proved.

 

Yet here you are telling us that "viral germ theory" is something PROVEN.

 

Is this a lapse of memory? Is it an incapacity for logical consistence? Or are you just a dishonest piece of shit with an agenda?

Stop being a lazy piece of shit and give the link to the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, GeoffB said:

Viruses are a quirk of nature and there is scientific debate on whether they are alive or not.

You need to make and understand the distinction that viruses exist.

 

Viruses are indeed a quirk of nature according to your analysis. Suddenlly from nowhere an inert microparticle appears to be developing life. Dare I inquire into the studies on this lately transpiring controversy?

 

 

And just when we thought all the science was settled.

 

No- one is arguing that a strangely named inert particle ( non -living) exists.

 

The question is does it strangely cause disease?

 

Or is it, equally strangely, something else?

 

Whilst Im here Geoff, can you kindly inform Nathan of the fact that sperm are alive ?

 

Rather like yourself , he seems confused .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:

Viruses are indeed a quirk of nature according to your analysis. Suddenlly from nowhere an inert microparticle appears to be developing life. Dare I inquire into the studies on this lately transpiring controversy?

Just do an internet search for "Are viruses alive".

 

You just said "No- one is arguing that a strangely named inert particle ( non -living) exists."

Most people on here are arguing that exact point that "viruses do not exist".

 

There are many studies and scientific papers that shows a virus has cytopathic effects on healthy living cells. Therefore to answer your question yes viruses can cause disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'll do one better. I'll quote your post with the link.

 

On 12/23/2021 at 2:29 PM, 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

 

From the article:
 

Quote

 

It is not possible to prove that something exists (or doesn’t exist). All anyone can ever do is provide evidence,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Nobody can prove existence

It’s good to know the limits of these tools – their advantages and disadvantages – so that we can understand the results they create. After that, all we can do is look at the evidence available, because,

 

“… when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility … All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements.”

Prove it’ is a phrase thrown around with glee. But rarely are you really challenging a friend to provide a rigorous proof of some statement you disagree with. In science, there is no proof. 

 

 

Proof of the "viral germ theory" or existence of viruses is, then, impossible according to the author's beliefs. You endorsed this article. You said it "neatly explains why viruses exist and why it is important that people in the "alternative media" start to accept the fact." Yet the author emphatically states several times that proof of their existence is not just lacking but in principle impossible.

 

So, now that we've proved the existence of this logical inconsistency, what is your answer? Why are you inconsistent?

 

Is it a problem of memory? Is it a problem of the intellect? Or is it because you are a dishonest sack of shit with an agenda? Do you even read what you present to us?

 

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

7 minutes ago, GeoffB said:

Just do an internet search for "Are viruses alive".

 

You just said "No- one is arguing that a strangely named inert particle ( non -living) exists."

Most people on here are arguing that exact point that "viruses do not exist".

 

There are many studies and scientific papers that shows a virus has cytopathic effects on healthy living cells. Therefore to answer your question yes viruses can cause disease.

3 more sentences of waffle.

 

There are countless millions of so called  viruses in a teaspoonful of soil. To say nothing of the trillions in each of our bodies.

 

Virus means poison in latin. It has been conveniently hijacked ( and probably defined by the death cult) to justify this ongoing genocide by vaccination.

 

Using their definiton of a virus and given their abundance in nature , surely humanity would have already been wiped out by now ?

 

Perhaps you have  a scientific paper that explains how such common sense is somehow not common sense?

 

You seem to being doing a good job of defying common sense so far.

 

Finally, these people promulgating such horseshit ARE coming down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GeoffB said:

Just do an internet search for "Are viruses alive".

 

You just said "No- one is arguing that a strangely named inert particle ( non -living) exists."

Most people on here are arguing that exact point that "viruses do not exist".

 

No. The term "virus" has particular connotations. The viral theory of disease is not just about the existence of RNA sequences is protein shells. It's about their nature as infectious causal mechanisms of disease that make human beings contagious to one another and that this alleged fact makes diseases preventable or treatable via quarantines, vaccines and antivirals. 

 

 

As for me, I'm arguing that their existence has never been demonstrated, that they remain unobservable theoretical entities postulated to explain some set of actually observable phenomena, and that there exist other comprehensive explanations of the very same set of phenomena.

 

I will also argue that there is not only an astonishing lack of experimental (not anecdotal, "common sense" or epidemiological!) evidence  for the hypothesis that viral infection makes human beings contagious to one another but that in many cases the proposed mechanism of infection has been effectively falsified, such as is the case with influenza. The complete failure of experiments to transmit influenza from one person to another is simply baffling if the viral hypothesis is true for the disease. 

 

Of course it is always possible to invent ad hoc hypotheses to explain away results which otherwise imply falsification. Viral theory is of course built upon such foundations. Namely, for some virus v and set S of symptoms,

 

1) V can be present without any member of S ("asymptomatic infections") and

2) Members of some subset of S can be present without v ("it's a different disease with similar or identical symptoms")

 

So v is neither necessary nor sufficient for S. This is obviously true for "COVID-19". Its symptoms are not unique to it, and a great proportion of the allegedly infected are asymptomatic. This inconvenient fact is one reason why Koch's postulates cannot be fulfilled. Virologists then argue away 1) by way of "multiple causal factors" and complain that Koch's postulates are too strict for this. But 2) implies the viral factor is not even necessary for the effect.  Terrain theory would argue that there are other "causal factors" which are, quite contrary to viruses, may be both necessary and sufficient.

 

Regardless, even if viral theory were true of some diseases, this would need to be demonstrated in each case.

 

Quote

There are many studies and scientific papers that shows a virus has cytopathic effects on healthy living cells. Therefore to answer your question yes viruses can cause disease.

 

No. There are many studies and papers that show there exist phenomena, which are interpreted to be effects of a virus, which are associated with subsequent or antecedant cytopathic effects on healthy living cells.

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

4 hours ago, Apotheosis said:

 

Answer the question.

 

Which of Frederick and Relman's postulates do you think is not consistent with being an effect of disease or is incompatible a terrain theory of disease?

 

Since the world has "moved on" since the days of Robert Koch, which modern criteria for supposedly demonstrating the existence of a virus as the causal agent of a disease do you think are logically sufficient for the purpose?

 

 

Do you beat your wife with your belt or your fists?

 

I'm not the one claiming to have "explained" the symptomatic phenomena associated with the idea of "chicken pox". That's the germ camp. 

 

I will tell you that 

1. Chicken pox is overwhelmingly a childhood disease that sets on within a few years of weaning from breast milk.

2. Administration of breast milk can alleviate the symptoms of chicken pox.

3. English milk maids usually didn't get smallpox.

 

Unlike your theories, these are facts. And their usefulness is totally theory independent.

 

 

 

 

Lol. Do you even understand HOW Pasteur achieved his results "demonstrating" that rabies was transmitted by bite via a virus in saliva?

 

HE FAILED to give healthy dogs rabies when he took saliva from rabid dogs and INJECTED it into the animal's bloodstreams (because that's a "realistic" model of a dog bite ... *facepalm*).

 

So he then injected it in massive quantities DIRECTLY into their brains. This was his "proof". And you are mentally retarded if you accept it as such.

 

And this is exactly reminiscent of pedophile boy rapist Gajdusek's "discovery" of kuru being caused by eating diseased brains which won him a Nobel Prize. He FAILED to cause kuru in monkeys by feeding them diseased brains. He FAILED to cause it by injecting them with diseased brain tissue. So he bored holes into their skulls and deposited the brain tissue directly into their brains. They then went mad and died. This was his "proof" that kuru was an infectious disease caused by consuming diseased brains. Apparently the Nobel Prize committee are as conversant in epistemology as you lot.

ANSWER THE QUESTION

 

So is chicken pox a virus or a bacteria?

And same with Rabies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcusOmouse said:

3 more sentences of waffle.

 

There are countless millions of so called  viruses in a teaspoonful of soil. To say nothing of the trillions in each of our bodies.

 

Virus means poison in latin. It has been conveniently hijacked ( and probably defined by the death cult) to justify this ongoing genocide by vaccination.

 

Using their definiton of a virus and given their abundance in nature , surely humanity would have already been wiped out by now ?

 

Perhaps you have  a scientific paper that explains how such common sense is somehow not common sense?

 

You seem to being doing a good job of defying common sense so far.

 

Finally, these people promulgating such horseshit ARE coming down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is sperm alive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MarcusOmouse said:

3 more sentences of waffle.

 

There are countless millions of so called  viruses in a teaspoonful of soil. To say nothing of the trillions in each of our bodies.

 

Virus means poison in latin. It has been conveniently hijacked ( and probably defined by the death cult) to justify this ongoing genocide by vaccination.

 

Using their definiton of a virus and given their abundance in nature , surely humanity would have already been wiped out by now ?

 

Perhaps you have  a scientific paper that explains how such common sense is somehow not common sense?

 

You seem to being doing a good job of defying common sense so far.

 

Finally, these people promulgating such horseshit ARE coming down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad you agree that viruses exist.

 

Some viruses cause disease some don't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Apotheosis said:

 

 

 

I'll do one better. I'll quote your post with the link.

 

 

From the article:
 

 

 

 

 

Proof of the "viral germ theory" or existence of viruses is, then, impossible according to the author's beliefs. You endorsed this article. You said it "neatly explains why viruses exist and why it is important that people in the "alternative media" start to accept the fact." Yet the author emphatically states several times that proof of their existence is not just lacking but in principle impossible.

 

So, now that we've proved the existence of this logical inconsistency, what is your answer? Why are you inconsistent?

 

Is it a problem of memory? Is it a problem of the intellect? Or is it because you are a dishonest sack of shit with an agenda? Do you even read what you present to us?

 

It is a philosophical point on whether anything can be proved to exist.

 

However, as the writer of the piece states if the evidence is overwhelming then it is likely something exists.

 

The writer agrees that the evidence for virus existing is overwhelming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Apotheosis said:

No. There are many studies and papers that show there exist phenomena, which are interpreted to be effects of a virus, which are associated with subsequent or antecedant cytopathic effects on healthy living cells.

Yes. It shows that the interpretation that what is causing the phenomena is a virus is correct as the evidence is overwhelming.

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...