Do biological viruses exist?

[Scott75]

Back when the Covid epidemic began, I believed in all the viruses virologists tell us exist. Then one day, a former medical journalist who I'd come to know told me that some people no longer believed biological viruses existed. She herself was undecided if this theory could be true and I remember telling her that it sounded too good to be true. She later went on to once again firmly believing in biological viruses, though she did write some articles that suggested that the alleged Cov 2 virus' harm was greatly exagerated. 

I, on the other hand, started reading from a group of doctors and other professionals who no longer believed in biological viruses. It took me about a year of discussing the subject with people online and researching the positions of these doctors and other professionals to finally persuade me that biological viruses didn't actually exist. I think I should specify here that I'm not saying that some of the named viruses don't exist as microbes- the bacteriophage is a good example. It wasn't originally thought of as a virus and I contend that it isn't one.

Anyway, this group of doctors and other professionals went on to write a 2 page statement detailing the lack of evidence that biological viruses exist and sets of experiments that could be undertaken to provide evidence that they do in fact exist. That statement can be seen below:

https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

 

I'll quote a paragraph of it that I've already brought up with another poster here:

**

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. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

**

[Scott75]

  

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

  

On 7/17/2024 at 7:49 AM, phoenyx75 said:

 

The argument that the doctors and other professionals make is that biological viruses have never truly been isolated. From the 2 page statement that I referenced earlier:

**

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. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

**

 

Full statement:

https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

 

She's making what appears to be a weak semantic argument based on a strict interpretation of the word "isolate."

 

I'd like to point out that I don't think Dr. Sam Bailey wrote the statement, she is just one of the signatories and she posted it on her website. I think Tom Cowan wrote most if not all of it and this is why he is the first signatory. Anyway, as far as I know, virology is the only alleged field of science wherein isolate doesn't actually mean to separate something from other things. Do you know of any other exceptions?

 

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Again, they have mapped the entire genome of many viruses, which makes that entire argument completely irrelevant.

 

You can't map out the genome of something if you haven't first truly isolated what you're trying to map out. Failing to truly isolate what you're trying to map out just results in "mapping out" DNA and RNA fragments of unknown provenance. Dr. Mark Bailey gets into this in his essay "A Farewell to Virology":

**

METAGENOMIC SEQUENCING — VIROLOGY’S FINAL GASP?

[snip]

The cost of sequencing has fallen dramatically since 2001, when it was over US$5000 per raw megabase (Mb), through to 2007 when it was around $500 per Mb, after which it dropped precipitously to $0.005 per Mb by mid-2021.196 Additionally, the emergence of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) around 2005 resulted in a massive reduction in the time required to sequence genomes. As stated in a 2017 Biology and Medicine paper,

Quote

the human genome, for example, consists of 3 billion bps [base pairs]...the sequencing of the human genome using the Sanger sequencing took almost 15 years, required the cooperation of many laboratories around the world and costed approximately 100 million US dollars, whereas the sequencing by NGS sequencers using the 454 Genome Sequencer FLX took two months and for approximately one hundredth of the cost.197

The same paper went on to state, "unfortunately, NGS are incapable [sic] to read the complete DNA sequence of the genome, they are limited to sequence small DNA fragments and generate millions of reads. This limit remains a negative point especially for genome assembly projects because it requires high computing resources."

 

It is pointed out that with regard to virology, a far bigger concern than "computing resources" is that a process that can be employed for sequencing genetic material of known provenance (e.g. human, bacterial, and fungal cells) has morphed into algorithmic assembly of genetic fragments of unknown provenance. This is the virus hunters' basis of identifying what they claim are viruses. Computing resources are no longer a problem for the virologists as they mine information from their completely anti-scientific "wet-lab pipeline" methodologies involving crude samples and feed these generated unfiltered reads into their theoretical "dry-lab pipeline" and its in silico models.

 

It would seem that the combination of massively reduced sequencing costs and shortened time frames have accelerated the descent of virology into further anti-science, for which humanity is paying a very dear price for non-existent viruses that are invented at will and used as excuses for spurious interventions and enslavement. An October 2019 publication in Critical Reviews in Microbiology claimed that, "mNGS [metagenomic NGS] performs well in identifying rare, novel, difficult-to-detect and co-infected pathogens directly from clinical samples.”198 However, "performs well" with regards to identifying novel “viral pathogens” is meaningless as they too have fallen into virology’s circular reasoning vortex. Most of the "novel pathogens" they listed in their paper were viruses derived from the purportedly advantageous “culture-independent" modern technique of mNGS. Once again however, if nobody can culture or physically isolate alleged viruses, how can various genetic sequences in environmental samples be claimed to come from them? As has been outlined, the declaration by Fan Wu et al. of a “new coronavirus” in Wuhan was based entirely on such proffered genetic sequences. Virology’s attempt to pass off this methodology as proof of virus particles has introduced an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is inconsistent with the scientific method.

**

Full article:

https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Edited July 21, 2024 by phoenyx75
added information