Hey James, You have a PhD, correct? It's really hard for me to understand how you don't grok this. I'm a complete layman in this field (retired computer systems engineer), but I also lack any post nominal letters. I'm a college dropout, and a HS dropout before that. (I had to get a GED to join the USN)
The problem is that every scientific experiment must have an independent variable (e.g, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample) and a dependent variable (the so-called cytopathic effects (CPE) observed in purported "viral tissue culture").
What we want to ensure is that the observed effect is not an artifact of the experimental conditions. So the control in such a case would be to repeat the experiment with a neutral substance, like h2o, or better yet, nothing at all. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN THE HISTORY OF VIROLOGY*.
(* With the exception of the self-published paper by Dr. Stefan Lanka, which showed the CPE effects were found even in the control, meaning THE WHOLE DAMN PROCEDURE IS UNREPEATABLE and thus INVALID)
Anyway, since you are so confident that control experiments have been done on the fundamental axiomatic tools of virology, then you should have no problem becoming a signatory to the Settling the Virus Debate statement.
It's absolutely free, the project has already been independently funded by a generous anonymous donor.
All you have to do is say, "Yes, I endorse the Settling the Virus Debate statement, and its proposal to run a blinded, properly controlled validation procedure of the fundamental tools of virology: isolation, sequencing, SEM photography, and pathogenicity via natural modes of exposure."
I’m not here to argue virus or no virus. I clicked the link out of curiosity and a constant hunger to learn. But I have to ask, what does “The optimal cleansing method for the removal of sunscreen:Water, cleanser or cleansing oil?” have to do with it? It’s the second study in your search results link. It gave me a chuckle if nothing else!
"Thus we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate." Loeffler 1898. Quote at beginning of Principles of Virology 4th ed. Flint, Skalka et al 2015.
The above is a foundational assumption of virology & if one were to bother, one could trace the evolution of the viral theory (or delusion depending on your point of view) throughout the 20th century as assumption was piled onto assumption & observation moulded to fit the narrative.
What was the context of Loeffler's assertion in the above quote? I don't know, as I haven't tracked the source or read it in context, but one thing is clear, it is an assumption.
Personally, having delved into the history of virology (superficially) & how it was shaped & by whom, my intuition tells me that getting the population to believe in viral causation of disease was a very convenient cover to distract peoples attention away from the real causes, caused by the same families that controlled heavy industries & produced a plethora of toxic byproducts, on the one hand, & also controlled the direction of pharmaceutical research & treatment on the other.
Wow! What a silly argument. It amounts to look at this large number of papers that claim positive controls but I won't even cite one that will address any arguments put forth by vaccine skeptics. Why not compare the number of "safe and effective" covid-19 articles with those that raise doubt? This tactic is really no different than the one that suggests everyone should pay homage to the experts.
I have no skin in the game and have never even questioned the idea of viruses but this argument of look guys at how many papers mention controls even though I haven't bothered to actually go through one to resolve the issues virus skeptics put forth is laughable.
As far as I can tell, the troll-clowns leading the 'no virus' zombie mob demand a 'control' consisting of raw patient samples placed into nutrient medium. That just creates uncontrolled bacterial growth.
Calling that a 'control' is ludicrous on its face.
Gotta love tiny egoic fragments pushing their reality onto all while being completely oblivious to the gestalt whole. Their indoctrination cult has done well in narrowing their ability to processing only a fine grain of sand.
What a joke of an argument! It takes the question “big data or dumb data?” to the next level.
Try searching on pubmed for ‘vaccines AND “safe and effective”’ and you get 3779 results. I guess vaccines are safe and effective. Anyone who says that vaccines are not safe and effective has a lot of reading to do! So, sign me up for the 100 recommended jabs.
I need a definition of what they call control, and I would like to see videos of the process of how they do this. Unfortunately, it has become oh so apparent that peer reviewed anything is not really what we thought.
At this point, it is like the cheating spouse saying “trust me”, and as the saying goes “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me for being so stupid.”
No one is going to believe scientists or medicine unless we can see how and what is being done “scientifically”....words and articles are obsolete.
The second return I got when I clicked your link was "The optimal cleansing method for the removal of sunscreen:Water, cleanser or cleansing oil?" Simply doing a search for papers that "mention "VIRUS" and "control group" or "control samples" or "negative control" or "positive control" is something but it's not much of a refute, scientifically speaking. I'm very interested in this debate but I haven't seen any honest engagement from a legitimate expert, which I certainly am not, defending the notion that viruses exist and that they are the cause of pathologies. I also think it's an important enough debate that it should be taken seriously by both parties, (only one of which currently seems to be doing that) as the potential ramifications of the notion that viruses aren't what we think they are would profoundly affect the course of human history.
I stopped listening to Kaufman when he apparently failed to read any comments telling him to use updated Koch's postulates:
https://www.virology.ws/2010/01/22/kochs-postulates-in-the-21st-century/
Proffering iconoclastic ideas is good. Failure to read criticism is not.
Hey James, You have a PhD, correct? It's really hard for me to understand how you don't grok this. I'm a complete layman in this field (retired computer systems engineer), but I also lack any post nominal letters. I'm a college dropout, and a HS dropout before that. (I had to get a GED to join the USN)
The problem is outlined quite clearly here:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
The problem is that every scientific experiment must have an independent variable (e.g, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample) and a dependent variable (the so-called cytopathic effects (CPE) observed in purported "viral tissue culture").
What we want to ensure is that the observed effect is not an artifact of the experimental conditions. So the control in such a case would be to repeat the experiment with a neutral substance, like h2o, or better yet, nothing at all. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN THE HISTORY OF VIROLOGY*.
(* With the exception of the self-published paper by Dr. Stefan Lanka, which showed the CPE effects were found even in the control, meaning THE WHOLE DAMN PROCEDURE IS UNREPEATABLE and thus INVALID)
Anyway, since you are so confident that control experiments have been done on the fundamental axiomatic tools of virology, then you should have no problem becoming a signatory to the Settling the Virus Debate statement.
It's absolutely free, the project has already been independently funded by a generous anonymous donor.
All you have to do is say, "Yes, I endorse the Settling the Virus Debate statement, and its proposal to run a blinded, properly controlled validation procedure of the fundamental tools of virology: isolation, sequencing, SEM photography, and pathogenicity via natural modes of exposure."
So, will you?
I’m not here to argue virus or no virus. I clicked the link out of curiosity and a constant hunger to learn. But I have to ask, what does “The optimal cleansing method for the removal of sunscreen:Water, cleanser or cleansing oil?” have to do with it? It’s the second study in your search results link. It gave me a chuckle if nothing else!
"Thus we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate." Loeffler 1898. Quote at beginning of Principles of Virology 4th ed. Flint, Skalka et al 2015.
The above is a foundational assumption of virology & if one were to bother, one could trace the evolution of the viral theory (or delusion depending on your point of view) throughout the 20th century as assumption was piled onto assumption & observation moulded to fit the narrative.
What was the context of Loeffler's assertion in the above quote? I don't know, as I haven't tracked the source or read it in context, but one thing is clear, it is an assumption.
Personally, having delved into the history of virology (superficially) & how it was shaped & by whom, my intuition tells me that getting the population to believe in viral causation of disease was a very convenient cover to distract peoples attention away from the real causes, caused by the same families that controlled heavy industries & produced a plethora of toxic byproducts, on the one hand, & also controlled the direction of pharmaceutical research & treatment on the other.
Wow! What a silly argument. It amounts to look at this large number of papers that claim positive controls but I won't even cite one that will address any arguments put forth by vaccine skeptics. Why not compare the number of "safe and effective" covid-19 articles with those that raise doubt? This tactic is really no different than the one that suggests everyone should pay homage to the experts.
I have no skin in the game and have never even questioned the idea of viruses but this argument of look guys at how many papers mention controls even though I haven't bothered to actually go through one to resolve the issues virus skeptics put forth is laughable.
Germ theory will not go quietly into that good night. I've said that before, but it bears repeating.
As far as I can tell, the troll-clowns leading the 'no virus' zombie mob demand a 'control' consisting of raw patient samples placed into nutrient medium. That just creates uncontrolled bacterial growth.
Calling that a 'control' is ludicrous on its face.
Gotta love tiny egoic fragments pushing their reality onto all while being completely oblivious to the gestalt whole. Their indoctrination cult has done well in narrowing their ability to processing only a fine grain of sand.
What a joke of an argument! It takes the question “big data or dumb data?” to the next level.
Try searching on pubmed for ‘vaccines AND “safe and effective”’ and you get 3779 results. I guess vaccines are safe and effective. Anyone who says that vaccines are not safe and effective has a lot of reading to do! So, sign me up for the 100 recommended jabs.
Everybody sees you're being evasive. Not a good look.
Pick one publication. If you have so many, certainly you can find ONE publication that adequately addresses all the issues.
I need a definition of what they call control, and I would like to see videos of the process of how they do this. Unfortunately, it has become oh so apparent that peer reviewed anything is not really what we thought.
At this point, it is like the cheating spouse saying “trust me”, and as the saying goes “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me for being so stupid.”
No one is going to believe scientists or medicine unless we can see how and what is being done “scientifically”....words and articles are obsolete.
George Orwell was off by 38-years.
The second return I got when I clicked your link was "The optimal cleansing method for the removal of sunscreen:Water, cleanser or cleansing oil?" Simply doing a search for papers that "mention "VIRUS" and "control group" or "control samples" or "negative control" or "positive control" is something but it's not much of a refute, scientifically speaking. I'm very interested in this debate but I haven't seen any honest engagement from a legitimate expert, which I certainly am not, defending the notion that viruses exist and that they are the cause of pathologies. I also think it's an important enough debate that it should be taken seriously by both parties, (only one of which currently seems to be doing that) as the potential ramifications of the notion that viruses aren't what we think they are would profoundly affect the course of human history.