It is a fact that you (and the rest of 'No-Virus') have devised your own clever version of the 'scientific method'—a method that does not actually exist. You consistently misinterpret the true scientific method. The scientific method comprises a flexible set of principles rather than rigid rules, as recognized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world's largest scientific society, which serves as an umbrella organization for nearly 300 scientific institutions and publishes the esteemed journal Science. Other so-called definitions of the 'scientific method' are irrelevant.
Despite this, you persistently assert that the scientific method in virology is not being adhered to, which is a false claim. Ultimately, it is your claim that virology does not or cannot find viruses from a host without first culturing them in cell cultures, and because of this, you claim virology does not follow the scientific method. However, this is false—studies exist showing and documenting this using multiple methods of detection.
The point made by 'Sense Strand,' which you failed to grasp, is that the fundamental rules governing proteins and cells exist with little distinction, regardless if they are in artificial or natural environments.
Therefore, a spike protein is unequivocally synthesized by a cell, regardless of the conditions. Your assertion that it is not a natural phenomenon is fundamentally disingenuous.
Furthermore, even if virology does normally utilize cell cultures to study viruses, it does not mean whatsoever that virology is not following the scientific method. There are a multitude of legitimate reasons for why cell cultures are used.
You have devised your own 'scientific method' that disregards fundamental realities, variables, and principles of research. Your 'method' has no basis in reality, and falsely assumes that research has to follow a strictly ordered sequence of steps as outlined by you, but in reality, it does not. By claiming this falsehood, you can deceitfully label virology as a fraudulent field based solely on this assertion.
"Other so-called definitions of the 'scientific method' are irrelevant."
Please cite anything saying that the AAAS definition supercedes all others. You are logically fallaciously trying to appeal to an ultimate authority.
While you are correct that the AAAS says that there are no fixed steps, they also state that "there are certain features of science that give it a distinctive character as a mode of inquiry" and that
"there are common understandings" amongst scientists "about what constitutes an investigation that is scientifically valid." They note that "the validity of scientific claims is settled by referring to observations of phenomena," which is the first step of the scientific method as I outlined. They claim that "the process of formulating and testing hypotheses is one of the core activities of scientists" and that a "hypothesis that cannot in principle be put to the test of evidence may be interesting, but it is not likely to be scientifically useful." The development and testing of the hypothesis are the second and third step in my outline.
They also state that "scientists control conditions deliberately and precisely to obtain their evidence." Controls are included in my outline with the establishment of the hypothesis, right before testing through experimentation. After testing the hypothesis, scientists use the hypothesis to determine "what data to pay attention to and what additional data to seek, and for guiding the interpretation of data." Analyzing, interpreting, and making conclusions about the data are the fourth, fifth, and sixth steps in my outline.
As you can see, the AAAS agrees on what makes evidence scientific.
"you persistently assert that the scientific method in virology is not being adhered to, which is a false claim."
Virologists do not work with a valid independent variable identified prior to experimentation. They do not purifiy, isolate, and identify the assumed "viral" particles directly from the fluids of the sick host before doing the cell culture experiment. The IV cannot be a creation of the experiment, and the dependent variable (CPE) is a non-specific lab-created effect that has nothing to do with any observed natural phenomenon. Thus, cell cultures are an invalid pseudoscientific experiment, and as virology hinges upon it, virology itself is pseudoscience.
"Your assertion that it is not a natural phenomenon is fundamentally disingenuous."
A "spike protein" is not a natural phenomenon. It is created through manipulation by man. Apparently, you lack the same understanding as to what a natural phenomenon is as Thomas.
"even if virology does normally utilize cell cultures to study viruses, it does not mean whatsoever that virology is not following the scientific method"
It absolutely does mean that virology is not adhering to the scientific method, for the reasons already stated, and then some.
"You have devised your own 'scientific method'"
You give me far too credit and influence. The scientific method has been around for centuries. I am not a time traveler, nor did I create it.
I didn't claim the scientific method doesn't exist. I said your 'method' doesn't exist. I quoted from the ‘Scientific Method in Practice' by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. 2003 - Cornell University (p.3-5), where it is stated that, "The AAAS is the world’s largest scientific society, the umbrella organization for almost 300 scientific organizations and publisher of the prestigious journal Science. Accordingly, the AAAS position bids fair as an expression of the mainstream opinion.”
The AAAS and their explanation of what the scientific method entails, is correct. They state: "There simply is no fixed set of steps that scientists always follow, no one path that leads them unerringly to scientific knowledge."
The claim that the first step of the scientific method is to observe a phenomenon is not in dispute. Instead, it is your assertion that the scientific method is not being followed in virology due to your false claim that viruses cannot be observed in host samples without cell culture. That is an entire fallacy in and of itself.
-------------------------------------------
You claim that:
"They do not purifiy, isolate, and identify the assumed "viral" particles directly from the fluids of the sick host before doing the cell culture experiment."
TEM is a commonly employed method for observing viruses without the need for cell culture, relying solely on morphological indicators. Further, certain viruses originating from insects or plants can be directly collected from the organism and observed without artificial culture.
-------------------------------------------
You claim that:
"(CPE) is a non-specific lab-created effect that has nothing to do with any observed natural phenomenon."
This is false. CPE is specific to viruses in viral cultures. One can know this because virus research has elucidated the effects of viral infection upon cells. Virus-infected cells grow in order of magnitude larger than cell lines in culture, expanding outwardly, being able to be seen with the naked eye. Moreover, CPE has been shown to occur only after the introduction of viral particles to the cell.
Cell damage can also be caused by improper usage of antibiotics, but one can still differentiate between virus-induced CPE and chemical-induced cell damage. The appearance of CPE takes hours or days after viral infection of the cell. On the other hand, the effects of overuse of antibiotics on cells can be rapid, leading to cell death in a short time frame.
-------------------------------------------
"Thus, cell cultures are an invalid pseudoscientific experiment, and as virology hinges upon it, virology itself is pseudoscience."
That is your opinion, not fact. Virology does not hinge upon cell cultures. "Early virus classification depended heavily on morphology as shown by EM (2*, 4, 60)..." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772359/
Viruses were therefore observed directly from host samples without culture.
Furthermore, cell cultures are necessary for standardization and reproducibility. Human samples, such as respiratory secretions, can contain substances that can interfere with the analysis of certain viruses. Moreover, some viruses do not replicate easily in certain cells or environments. Therefore, specific cell lines in specific cultures may be used to induce viral infection for study.
There is no basis in fact to claim cell cultures are an "invalid pseudoscientific experiment". Many different methods are used to detect and observe viruses in virology, not merely cell culture.
-------------------------------------------
You claim that:
"A "spike protein" is not a natural phenomenon. It is created through manipulation by man."
Spike proteins are major proteins of viruses, produced by cells—not by humans. Humans can only create an environment conducive to the manifestation of viral proteins within cells, but they cannot produce the viral protein itself, as you claim. Whether a spike protein is produced in a person's body or in a laboratory setting, it is inconsequential. Proteins, including spike proteins, are produced by cells regardless of the environment.
This is why you were asked to cite a study showing that spike proteins are not a natural phenomenon.
"I didn't claim the scientific method doesn't exist. I said your 'method' doesn't exist."
There is no "my version" of the scientific method. Please refer to my article that I linked in order to see that the steps I outlined are confirmed by many sources. I did not make up my own version. You are being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
"it is your assertion that the scientific method is not being followed in virology due to your false claim that viruses cannot be observed in host samples without cell culture. That is an entire fallacy in and of itself"
The particles claimed to be "viruses" cannot be observed within their supposed natural environment, i.e. purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick human or animal without culturing.
"TEM is a commonly employed method for observing viruses without the need for cell culture, relying solely on morphological indicators"
TEM images of random particles from unpurified samples is not proof of pathogenic "viruses." There must be a logical chain of evidence showing that the particles are indeed pathogenic "viruses." This is where the scientific method comes in.
"You claim that: "(CPE) is a non-specific lab-created effect that has nothing to do with any observed natural phenomenon." This is false."
It is not false. Please share where CPE is observed in nature outside of a lab.
"CPE is specific to viruses in viral cultures."
CPE is not specific to "viruses" and is said to be caused by many factors including:
1. Bacteria
2. Amoeba
3. Parasites
4. Antibiotics
5. Antifungals
6. Chemical contaminants
7. Age and cell deterioration
8. Environmental stress
A "virus" is not necessary as an explanation for CPE.
"Moreover, CPE has been shown to occur only after the introduction of viral particles to the cell"
Incorrect. CPE is observed without any "virus" material present whatsoever.
"Early virus classification depended heavily on morphology as shown by EM (2*, 4, 60)..." -
Again, pointing at random particles from unpurified samples in TEM is not proof of any pathogenic "virus." You are missing the logical chain of evidence that must occur in order to be able to make such a claim.
"There is no basis in fact to claim cell cultures are an "invalid pseudoscientific experiment"
There is plenty of basis.
1. The experiment does not reflect any hypothesis based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
2. CPE is a nonspecific lab-created effect.
3. There is no independent variable in purified and isolated "viral" particles taken directly from the fluids that are confirmed prior to experimentation.
4. The IV cannot be the end result of the experiment.
5. Without a valid IV, proper controls cannot be performed.
Thus, the cell culture is a pseudoscientific experiment in multiple ways.
"This is why you were asked to cite a study showing that spike proteins are not a natural phenomenon."
Show me "spike proteins" in nature without manipulation by humans.
I am well aware of your claims. You are creating arbitrary guidelines for virology without considering the requirements of virus research, and then claiming that virology does not follow the scientific method, such as claiming viruses MUST be observed via EM without culture. That is your false requirement, and thus, it is indeed your method—not the actual methods required or used.
I have already stated that I am not disputing the various principles of the scientific method.
Your entire response to me lacks any evidence or support for your claims. Instead of offering sources and quoting them here in your reply, you simply link to your own website. I provided studies that completely refute your claims, yet you persist in making false statements.
I wrote, "CPE is specific to viruses in viral cultures.", making a point that CPE is primarily caused by viruses in viral cultures. I explained that chemicals can also cause cell damage, but the outcome is not the same as viral infection.
Further, to be clear, 'CPE' is not the correct term when referring to cell damage caused by antibiotics, toxins, or otherwise. 'Cytotoxicity', not 'CPE', is actually the appropriate term in those cases. Therefore, your list is not fully correct.
Moreover, when a virus infects a cell, the cells produce viruses, which can be confirmed through morphology via EM, among other detection methods. CPE can also occur in the body, in nature, whenever viruses infect cells, not only in a lab setting. Therefore, your statement that CPE only occurs in lab settings is false.
Numerous studies demonstrate the occurrence of viral infections in cells without the need for culture, of which I already provided a few in my previous response.
You continue to assert that cell culture is non-specific, but it is highly tailored to the specific infection agent being studied. One specificity is that viruses will only infect certain types of cells. As I previously stated, cell cultures are designed to be highly specific, so your claim is false.
-------------------------------------------
"Again, pointing at random particles from unpurified samples in TEM is not proof of any pathogenic "virus."
The studies I provided clearly demonstrate that the structural properties of viruses are clearly distinct from their surroundings. They're not "random particles". If you had actually read those studies, you would see this. Your statement is completely baseless and indicates that you are intentionally disregarding the available evidence and merely repeating your mantra.
Lastly, every study relating to spike proteins shows a natural process that occurs in cell culture. Therefore, I do not need to provide you with any specific study in that regard, since all virus studies that deal with viral infection confirm this fact.
There is no need for me to further elaborate on my points. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basic principles of virology, as well as other branches of science. The claims in your responses hold no merit and are virtually all false representations.
Thanks, Petra. I think I am driven by my curiosity in seeing how they will respond next. It's like watching someone hilariously slip over numerous banana peels and fall in slow motion. 😉
If we assume that a scientist is one who practices science, we can conclude that any scientist is a representative of science. Meaning that he/she functions as an agent translating the details of science into perception by other people. Some of these people come from the same field, so they may be happy with peer-reviewed articles and may not need to examine in detail all statements made by the scientist.
When this scientific knowledge spills over into the general public, these explanations are necessary. One, they will help the scientist to convey his/her message and/or persuade the public to do/believe/understand/finance/support, etc. Two, when the public understands the context, they are (probably) more likely to follow the scientist’s advice or recommended precautions.
It’s not our fault that practically every noun, verb and adjective needs to be translated from scientilese into English. The scientists at some point decided to play with meanings where it is not really needed. Like with “isolation”. We, non-scientists, do not take for granted what their predecessors said. We are trying to understand what is being told/written.
It turns out that scientists already have their holy guidebooks with precise definitions. They just don’t bother to refer to them. Reading that stuff could make their life more difficult. Why isolate something (especially when it is invisible) when you can simply press the “ON” button on the miniature table centrifuge? You only need to merge words to arrive at isolation by centrifugation, and you are good to reap your benefits. Right now - not after 15 years of failed experiments on how to isolate a 100 nm theoretical organism which is nowhere to found… as proven by hundreds officially confirmed statements from the institutions which are “the authorities” to these scientists…
The scientists act in good faith. They try to protect their ground. They know that they can not let go of their twisted language. If it happens, their whole structure will crumble down. They would need to return their titles, awards, prizes, grants, publications, patents, alliances, the past, the present and the future. No way.
For this reason, there will be no real, honest and respectable debate ever.
Lots and lots of people will have to step down from their pedestals and return their titles when these edifices that are built on untruth and profit come crashing down (which they already are, if Thomas Baldwin is one of those trying to hold it down)! Then the personal trainers and statisticians and accountants and editors and journalists and Army captains of the world will be acknowledged as knowing how to think through the logical fallacies and lazy cognition no matter what the field and how hard they try to obfuscate it.
Maybe this is the promised great reset. If the concept of killing out 90% of the population is true, the first group that will be sacrificed will be doctors, professors, scientists and researchers. They know too much. And they know how to avoid this operation or at least mitigate it.
I think doctors are starting to see this. They are still delusional that they will not be targeted - even though it has been happening in the open since 2020…
From the “follow the money” angle, just imagine $$ trillions in wealth assets seized from doctors who will be made illegal or who will be sacrificed.
Virology and other such pseudosciences are in their last stages, as more of us begin to unravel the lies, same as capitalism, which actually created virology as a cash cow of the medical/pharmaceutical arm of the capitalist cartel. As capitalism struggles to preserve its house of cards Ponzi scheme, it needs more and more crises' to corral the masses into manageable smart cities under veil after veil of falsehoods, even as it reinvents itself into a less kind/less fake democratic version of itself. Just a thought.
We will never know what or who created pseudosciences. It’s too distant in time, there are no witnesses to this, and written records, being random and unverifiable by nature, are not helpful. Anyway, the origin is irrelevant. What we have now is enough. Courtesy of the 2020 worldwide revolution against human health, backstage connections, development, alliances and mechanisms have started to infiltrate into the everyday consciousness of common people.
What used to be a pile of conspiracy theories turned out to be an interesting list of thoroughly planned and diligently executed action plans. With the hiding of Anthony, the grand schemers started to go back into the shadows. It’s too late. The whole world got to know how to ask helpful questions which are inconvenient for them. There is no need to oppose these sets of theories. They are made up of so many gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions.
You simply have to carefully read what they describe. They won’t respond to your questions because they have no answers. They have managed to get away with all these fictions for a very long time. Not any more. Now they will have to create new theories, based on new terminology, pretending to be even more complex and inaccessible to lay people than ever before. This is where they commit the greatest crime against their own “science” and Master.
Their own Master said it clearly: “The science is settled.” Stop all your pseudo-research, wind up your laboratories and companies. There is nothing more to discover. You can retire and enjoy what you have left from your life.
I love, above all, two things about this. One, where you say, "...he doubled down on his appeal to himself," after he had used the logical fallacy of appeal to authority--his own. A bit arrogant! He makes a logical fallacy of himself!
And, along the same lines, what really shines through is that this professor with a PhD tries to heap scorn on the idea of a mere personal trainer knowing anything about the scientific method, as if that disqualifies you, when the PhD clearly not only doesn't know it himself, but also he clearly doesn't really know how to think. And he's a college professor, appealing to his own authority instead of demonstrating that he actually knows what he's talking about! Rather ironic. It is very entertaining to read this exchange and see him embarrassing himself over and over, with evidently no awareness of his own stupidity, or no capacity to even hear what you are saying. Either way, he's a sad example of an academic, though, I'm afraid, probably not a unique one.
Thanks, Betsy! Sadly, you are correct that Thomas is not a unique example in academia. He is the rule, not the exception. We definitely have an uphill battle trying to change that, which is why I do engage in and share these exchanges for others to see.
"Which is why I do engage in and share these exchanges for other to see." And.... thank God for your doing the absurdly needed exposing of this ongoing toxic extermination insanity! Surely, The truth and love is the only real 'cure' as we come together against this obvious (for those with eyes to see) global plot. Job (very) well done!!!
Mike, I noticed a very familiar stench from this guy. His denial of all facts is so reminiscent of the way COVID shots were pushed, coerced, and mandated long after they were proven not to work. It made absolutely no sense to put people out of work for exercising a personal choice that was proven to have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Yet, they did it anyway. They refused to listen or care that the facts did not support their tyrannical measure and in the process many people were severely harmed, put out of work, or even killed by the shots they reluctantly took to save their jobs. This just illustrates how dangerous this kind of thinking is. Pseudo-Science is a religious cult all of its own and you can't reason anyone out of it. If it wasn't real science that got them into this kind of darkness, we can't expect to use science to pull them out of it. It will require a spiritual awakening and a great dose of humility. Without that, real science doesn't stand a chance.
But, all of your arguments truly do serve a worthy cause even if it is impossible to get the blind to see. It serves as great education and practice for the rest of us. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Thanks so much for your good work!
Thanks, Rob! Using these conversations as a way to educate others on the mindsets of those that are entrenched in this pseudoscientific cult is exactly why I post articles like this. I'm glad that you enjoyed it! 🙂
This is what I call above and beyond the call of duty. You demonstrated perseverance and patience. I was reminded of a story about the avian flu this past week and a scientist saying he had been studying H5N1 for more than 20 years. How do you study something that doesn’t exist?
Thanks, Michael! It's impressive how they continue to fool themselves into believing that they are studying Santa Clause by looking at cookie crumbs, filled stockings, ashy footprints, and presents under the tree. 😉
🙏🏻💜🙏🏻 If You're interested in a solution to the problem of People being paid to not see...or paid to hide things, say things, etc., let Me know and I will offer a link or two.
I'm still undecided whether I should be happy that this guy is only up to mischief in a lab instead of a politician's chair. So it could be worse. I'm a hopeless optimist.
I wonder how these people exclude the possibility that they are leading themselves up the garden path with their methods, but apparently they have lost all shame as soon as they call up their bank balance. Good heavens, someone is paying money for this nonsense. The guy should be ashamed of himself.
Without question, you're able to articulate very well with an amount of attention that many of us are tired of spending time discussing. You deserve a lot of credit for devoting incredible patience engaging "scientists" who try their hardest to claim those of us questioning "the science" are not knowledgeable enough to have such a conversation.
Hey @MIKESTONE - you can use ChatGPT to prove Thomas' own argument. ChatGPT even says, when asked, "Essentially, anything that happens in the universe without human intervention or manipulation can be considered a natural phenomenon."
I'll send you the graphic - definitely worth replying back to him. It couldn't be any more perfect!
Thanks Mike for this. I will use this to inform a bloke who believes in viruses. A clever bloke too. Lots and lots of credentials.
His latest claim to me are.
"As I already explained, viruses and even living CoV-2 have been observed in multiple states of their life by electron microscopes and confocal fluorescent microscopes. You can read about the latter case here, which includes 3D fluorescence images of SARS-CoV-2-infected ferret nasal turbinates, published already in 2021": he then cites https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8234815/
What a great elucidation of the illogicality evinced by people to support an unsustainable argument. You have the patience of a saint, Mike.
I find I have similar if shorter types of engagement with people.
I've never heard of elephant hurling before but I've seen evidence of it and it's a great fallacy to have identified.
I think people's argument tends to lack logical fallacy not because they understand logic particularly well but because they're not invested in a particular belief they wish to fight for. What I believe makes people argue illogically is not a lack of understanding of logic - they can have written books on the subject but still resort to illogical argument - but investment in a particular belief. As social psychologist, Carole Wade, says:
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.”
Bo Bennett, who has a PhD in social psychology and who describes himself as a critical thinker has written a reference of logical fallacies and a reference of cognitive biases. And yet he engaged in Argument from Incredulity and the No Discussion fallacy with me in response to my evidence-backed argument for there being no pandemic.
No Discussion (also No Negotiation; the Control Voice; Peace through Strength; a Muscular Foreign Policy; Fascism): A pure Argumentum ad Baculum that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering either instant, unconditional compliance/surrender or defeat/death as the only two options for settling even minor differences, e.g., screaming "Get down on the ground, now!" or declaring "We don't talk to terrorists." This deadly fallacy falsely paints real or potential "hostiles" as monsters devoid of all reason, and far too often contains a very strong element of "machismo" as well. I.e. "A real, muscular leader never resorts to pantywaist pleading, apologies, excuses, fancy talk or argument. That's for lawyers, liars and pansies and is nothing but a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill." The late actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie roles. See also, The Pout.
I'd love to see what happened if you went on his website, Mike. Anyone can register and post a question about what they believe is a logical fallacy or ask if people think that a claim constitutes a logical fallacy. www.logicallyfallacious.com
You post a link to the logical fallacy of Burden of Proof on the site Your Logical Fallacy is managed by Jesse Richardson who is really just like Bo Bennett, a slave to mainstream thinking.
Thanks for the comment and the suggestion, Petra! I really like the quote you shared.
The elephant hurling tactic seems to be a favorite that is commonly utilized by these people as they try to intimidate with numerous links to make it look like they have a wealth of evidence in order to scare people away. It all falls apart if we hold them to one link at a time and expose that the papers that they share do not contain the evidence that they claim that they do. We can show that these people are dishonest and do not even read what they link. That is why I will always call out this tactic and hold them accountable, asking them to explain where the specific evidence is within each and every link they share. These people regularly run away from doing so.
I'll tell you, if these ghouls are the best science has to offer, we are in bad shape as a society...it makes the virology deception that much worse....imbeciles like these are their best and brightest....
Once again you deserve a medal for your patience, Mike!!
Thanks, Christine! It was quite the test of my limits. 😉
It is a fact that you (and the rest of 'No-Virus') have devised your own clever version of the 'scientific method'—a method that does not actually exist. You consistently misinterpret the true scientific method. The scientific method comprises a flexible set of principles rather than rigid rules, as recognized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world's largest scientific society, which serves as an umbrella organization for nearly 300 scientific institutions and publishes the esteemed journal Science. Other so-called definitions of the 'scientific method' are irrelevant.
Despite this, you persistently assert that the scientific method in virology is not being adhered to, which is a false claim. Ultimately, it is your claim that virology does not or cannot find viruses from a host without first culturing them in cell cultures, and because of this, you claim virology does not follow the scientific method. However, this is false—studies exist showing and documenting this using multiple methods of detection.
The point made by 'Sense Strand,' which you failed to grasp, is that the fundamental rules governing proteins and cells exist with little distinction, regardless if they are in artificial or natural environments.
Therefore, a spike protein is unequivocally synthesized by a cell, regardless of the conditions. Your assertion that it is not a natural phenomenon is fundamentally disingenuous.
Furthermore, even if virology does normally utilize cell cultures to study viruses, it does not mean whatsoever that virology is not following the scientific method. There are a multitude of legitimate reasons for why cell cultures are used.
You have devised your own 'scientific method' that disregards fundamental realities, variables, and principles of research. Your 'method' has no basis in reality, and falsely assumes that research has to follow a strictly ordered sequence of steps as outlined by you, but in reality, it does not. By claiming this falsehood, you can deceitfully label virology as a fraudulent field based solely on this assertion.
Hi Jeff,
"have devised your own clever version of the 'scientific method'—a method that does not actually exist."
You are wrong. The scientific method absolutely exists. You can find many sources that disagree with your claim here.
https://viroliegy.com/2024/02/29/viroliegy-101-the-scientific-method/
"Other so-called definitions of the 'scientific method' are irrelevant."
Please cite anything saying that the AAAS definition supercedes all others. You are logically fallaciously trying to appeal to an ultimate authority.
While you are correct that the AAAS says that there are no fixed steps, they also state that "there are certain features of science that give it a distinctive character as a mode of inquiry" and that
"there are common understandings" amongst scientists "about what constitutes an investigation that is scientifically valid." They note that "the validity of scientific claims is settled by referring to observations of phenomena," which is the first step of the scientific method as I outlined. They claim that "the process of formulating and testing hypotheses is one of the core activities of scientists" and that a "hypothesis that cannot in principle be put to the test of evidence may be interesting, but it is not likely to be scientifically useful." The development and testing of the hypothesis are the second and third step in my outline.
They also state that "scientists control conditions deliberately and precisely to obtain their evidence." Controls are included in my outline with the establishment of the hypothesis, right before testing through experimentation. After testing the hypothesis, scientists use the hypothesis to determine "what data to pay attention to and what additional data to seek, and for guiding the interpretation of data." Analyzing, interpreting, and making conclusions about the data are the fourth, fifth, and sixth steps in my outline.
http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm
As you can see, the AAAS agrees on what makes evidence scientific.
"you persistently assert that the scientific method in virology is not being adhered to, which is a false claim."
Virologists do not work with a valid independent variable identified prior to experimentation. They do not purifiy, isolate, and identify the assumed "viral" particles directly from the fluids of the sick host before doing the cell culture experiment. The IV cannot be a creation of the experiment, and the dependent variable (CPE) is a non-specific lab-created effect that has nothing to do with any observed natural phenomenon. Thus, cell cultures are an invalid pseudoscientific experiment, and as virology hinges upon it, virology itself is pseudoscience.
"Your assertion that it is not a natural phenomenon is fundamentally disingenuous."
A "spike protein" is not a natural phenomenon. It is created through manipulation by man. Apparently, you lack the same understanding as to what a natural phenomenon is as Thomas.
"even if virology does normally utilize cell cultures to study viruses, it does not mean whatsoever that virology is not following the scientific method"
It absolutely does mean that virology is not adhering to the scientific method, for the reasons already stated, and then some.
"You have devised your own 'scientific method'"
You give me far too credit and influence. The scientific method has been around for centuries. I am not a time traveler, nor did I create it.
I didn't claim the scientific method doesn't exist. I said your 'method' doesn't exist. I quoted from the ‘Scientific Method in Practice' by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. 2003 - Cornell University (p.3-5), where it is stated that, "The AAAS is the world’s largest scientific society, the umbrella organization for almost 300 scientific organizations and publisher of the prestigious journal Science. Accordingly, the AAAS position bids fair as an expression of the mainstream opinion.”
The AAAS and their explanation of what the scientific method entails, is correct. They state: "There simply is no fixed set of steps that scientists always follow, no one path that leads them unerringly to scientific knowledge."
The claim that the first step of the scientific method is to observe a phenomenon is not in dispute. Instead, it is your assertion that the scientific method is not being followed in virology due to your false claim that viruses cannot be observed in host samples without cell culture. That is an entire fallacy in and of itself.
-------------------------------------------
You claim that:
"They do not purifiy, isolate, and identify the assumed "viral" particles directly from the fluids of the sick host before doing the cell culture experiment."
TEM is a commonly employed method for observing viruses without the need for cell culture, relying solely on morphological indicators. Further, certain viruses originating from insects or plants can be directly collected from the organism and observed without artificial culture.
-------------------------------------------
You claim that:
"(CPE) is a non-specific lab-created effect that has nothing to do with any observed natural phenomenon."
This is false. CPE is specific to viruses in viral cultures. One can know this because virus research has elucidated the effects of viral infection upon cells. Virus-infected cells grow in order of magnitude larger than cell lines in culture, expanding outwardly, being able to be seen with the naked eye. Moreover, CPE has been shown to occur only after the introduction of viral particles to the cell.
Cell damage can also be caused by improper usage of antibiotics, but one can still differentiate between virus-induced CPE and chemical-induced cell damage. The appearance of CPE takes hours or days after viral infection of the cell. On the other hand, the effects of overuse of antibiotics on cells can be rapid, leading to cell death in a short time frame.
-------------------------------------------
"Thus, cell cultures are an invalid pseudoscientific experiment, and as virology hinges upon it, virology itself is pseudoscience."
That is your opinion, not fact. Virology does not hinge upon cell cultures. "Early virus classification depended heavily on morphology as shown by EM (2*, 4, 60)..." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772359/
Viruses were therefore observed directly from host samples without culture.
Furthermore, cell cultures are necessary for standardization and reproducibility. Human samples, such as respiratory secretions, can contain substances that can interfere with the analysis of certain viruses. Moreover, some viruses do not replicate easily in certain cells or environments. Therefore, specific cell lines in specific cultures may be used to induce viral infection for study.
There is no basis in fact to claim cell cultures are an "invalid pseudoscientific experiment". Many different methods are used to detect and observe viruses in virology, not merely cell culture.
-------------------------------------------
You claim that:
"A "spike protein" is not a natural phenomenon. It is created through manipulation by man."
Spike proteins are major proteins of viruses, produced by cells—not by humans. Humans can only create an environment conducive to the manifestation of viral proteins within cells, but they cannot produce the viral protein itself, as you claim. Whether a spike protein is produced in a person's body or in a laboratory setting, it is inconsequential. Proteins, including spike proteins, are produced by cells regardless of the environment.
This is why you were asked to cite a study showing that spike proteins are not a natural phenomenon.
"I didn't claim the scientific method doesn't exist. I said your 'method' doesn't exist."
There is no "my version" of the scientific method. Please refer to my article that I linked in order to see that the steps I outlined are confirmed by many sources. I did not make up my own version. You are being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
"it is your assertion that the scientific method is not being followed in virology due to your false claim that viruses cannot be observed in host samples without cell culture. That is an entire fallacy in and of itself"
The particles claimed to be "viruses" cannot be observed within their supposed natural environment, i.e. purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick human or animal without culturing.
"TEM is a commonly employed method for observing viruses without the need for cell culture, relying solely on morphological indicators"
TEM images of random particles from unpurified samples is not proof of pathogenic "viruses." There must be a logical chain of evidence showing that the particles are indeed pathogenic "viruses." This is where the scientific method comes in.
"You claim that: "(CPE) is a non-specific lab-created effect that has nothing to do with any observed natural phenomenon." This is false."
It is not false. Please share where CPE is observed in nature outside of a lab.
"CPE is specific to viruses in viral cultures."
CPE is not specific to "viruses" and is said to be caused by many factors including:
1. Bacteria
2. Amoeba
3. Parasites
4. Antibiotics
5. Antifungals
6. Chemical contaminants
7. Age and cell deterioration
8. Environmental stress
A "virus" is not necessary as an explanation for CPE.
"Moreover, CPE has been shown to occur only after the introduction of viral particles to the cell"
Incorrect. CPE is observed without any "virus" material present whatsoever.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/12/19/virologys-lack-of-control/
"Early virus classification depended heavily on morphology as shown by EM (2*, 4, 60)..." -
Again, pointing at random particles from unpurified samples in TEM is not proof of any pathogenic "virus." You are missing the logical chain of evidence that must occur in order to be able to make such a claim.
"There is no basis in fact to claim cell cultures are an "invalid pseudoscientific experiment"
There is plenty of basis.
1. The experiment does not reflect any hypothesis based upon any observed natural phenomenon.
2. CPE is a nonspecific lab-created effect.
3. There is no independent variable in purified and isolated "viral" particles taken directly from the fluids that are confirmed prior to experimentation.
4. The IV cannot be the end result of the experiment.
5. Without a valid IV, proper controls cannot be performed.
Thus, the cell culture is a pseudoscientific experiment in multiple ways.
"This is why you were asked to cite a study showing that spike proteins are not a natural phenomenon."
Show me "spike proteins" in nature without manipulation by humans.
I am well aware of your claims. You are creating arbitrary guidelines for virology without considering the requirements of virus research, and then claiming that virology does not follow the scientific method, such as claiming viruses MUST be observed via EM without culture. That is your false requirement, and thus, it is indeed your method—not the actual methods required or used.
I have already stated that I am not disputing the various principles of the scientific method.
Your entire response to me lacks any evidence or support for your claims. Instead of offering sources and quoting them here in your reply, you simply link to your own website. I provided studies that completely refute your claims, yet you persist in making false statements.
I wrote, "CPE is specific to viruses in viral cultures.", making a point that CPE is primarily caused by viruses in viral cultures. I explained that chemicals can also cause cell damage, but the outcome is not the same as viral infection.
Further, to be clear, 'CPE' is not the correct term when referring to cell damage caused by antibiotics, toxins, or otherwise. 'Cytotoxicity', not 'CPE', is actually the appropriate term in those cases. Therefore, your list is not fully correct.
Moreover, when a virus infects a cell, the cells produce viruses, which can be confirmed through morphology via EM, among other detection methods. CPE can also occur in the body, in nature, whenever viruses infect cells, not only in a lab setting. Therefore, your statement that CPE only occurs in lab settings is false.
Numerous studies demonstrate the occurrence of viral infections in cells without the need for culture, of which I already provided a few in my previous response.
You continue to assert that cell culture is non-specific, but it is highly tailored to the specific infection agent being studied. One specificity is that viruses will only infect certain types of cells. As I previously stated, cell cultures are designed to be highly specific, so your claim is false.
-------------------------------------------
"Again, pointing at random particles from unpurified samples in TEM is not proof of any pathogenic "virus."
The studies I provided clearly demonstrate that the structural properties of viruses are clearly distinct from their surroundings. They're not "random particles". If you had actually read those studies, you would see this. Your statement is completely baseless and indicates that you are intentionally disregarding the available evidence and merely repeating your mantra.
Lastly, every study relating to spike proteins shows a natural process that occurs in cell culture. Therefore, I do not need to provide you with any specific study in that regard, since all virus studies that deal with viral infection confirm this fact.
There is no need for me to further elaborate on my points. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basic principles of virology, as well as other branches of science. The claims in your responses hold no merit and are virtually all false representations.
Yes, I was thinking while reading, "Mike has the patience of a saint."
Thanks, Petra. I think I am driven by my curiosity in seeing how they will respond next. It's like watching someone hilariously slip over numerous banana peels and fall in slow motion. 😉
Baldwin is not a scientist, but a technologist passing for a scientist, a distinction noted by David Rasnick in “The Viral Delusion.”
Great point, Jeffrey! 😁
If we assume that a scientist is one who practices science, we can conclude that any scientist is a representative of science. Meaning that he/she functions as an agent translating the details of science into perception by other people. Some of these people come from the same field, so they may be happy with peer-reviewed articles and may not need to examine in detail all statements made by the scientist.
When this scientific knowledge spills over into the general public, these explanations are necessary. One, they will help the scientist to convey his/her message and/or persuade the public to do/believe/understand/finance/support, etc. Two, when the public understands the context, they are (probably) more likely to follow the scientist’s advice or recommended precautions.
It’s not our fault that practically every noun, verb and adjective needs to be translated from scientilese into English. The scientists at some point decided to play with meanings where it is not really needed. Like with “isolation”. We, non-scientists, do not take for granted what their predecessors said. We are trying to understand what is being told/written.
It turns out that scientists already have their holy guidebooks with precise definitions. They just don’t bother to refer to them. Reading that stuff could make their life more difficult. Why isolate something (especially when it is invisible) when you can simply press the “ON” button on the miniature table centrifuge? You only need to merge words to arrive at isolation by centrifugation, and you are good to reap your benefits. Right now - not after 15 years of failed experiments on how to isolate a 100 nm theoretical organism which is nowhere to found… as proven by hundreds officially confirmed statements from the institutions which are “the authorities” to these scientists…
The scientists act in good faith. They try to protect their ground. They know that they can not let go of their twisted language. If it happens, their whole structure will crumble down. They would need to return their titles, awards, prizes, grants, publications, patents, alliances, the past, the present and the future. No way.
For this reason, there will be no real, honest and respectable debate ever.
Lots and lots of people will have to step down from their pedestals and return their titles when these edifices that are built on untruth and profit come crashing down (which they already are, if Thomas Baldwin is one of those trying to hold it down)! Then the personal trainers and statisticians and accountants and editors and journalists and Army captains of the world will be acknowledged as knowing how to think through the logical fallacies and lazy cognition no matter what the field and how hard they try to obfuscate it.
Maybe this is the promised great reset. If the concept of killing out 90% of the population is true, the first group that will be sacrificed will be doctors, professors, scientists and researchers. They know too much. And they know how to avoid this operation or at least mitigate it.
I think doctors are starting to see this. They are still delusional that they will not be targeted - even though it has been happening in the open since 2020…
From the “follow the money” angle, just imagine $$ trillions in wealth assets seized from doctors who will be made illegal or who will be sacrificed.
Virology and other such pseudosciences are in their last stages, as more of us begin to unravel the lies, same as capitalism, which actually created virology as a cash cow of the medical/pharmaceutical arm of the capitalist cartel. As capitalism struggles to preserve its house of cards Ponzi scheme, it needs more and more crises' to corral the masses into manageable smart cities under veil after veil of falsehoods, even as it reinvents itself into a less kind/less fake democratic version of itself. Just a thought.
We will never know what or who created pseudosciences. It’s too distant in time, there are no witnesses to this, and written records, being random and unverifiable by nature, are not helpful. Anyway, the origin is irrelevant. What we have now is enough. Courtesy of the 2020 worldwide revolution against human health, backstage connections, development, alliances and mechanisms have started to infiltrate into the everyday consciousness of common people.
What used to be a pile of conspiracy theories turned out to be an interesting list of thoroughly planned and diligently executed action plans. With the hiding of Anthony, the grand schemers started to go back into the shadows. It’s too late. The whole world got to know how to ask helpful questions which are inconvenient for them. There is no need to oppose these sets of theories. They are made up of so many gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions.
You simply have to carefully read what they describe. They won’t respond to your questions because they have no answers. They have managed to get away with all these fictions for a very long time. Not any more. Now they will have to create new theories, based on new terminology, pretending to be even more complex and inaccessible to lay people than ever before. This is where they commit the greatest crime against their own “science” and Master.
Their own Master said it clearly: “The science is settled.” Stop all your pseudo-research, wind up your laboratories and companies. There is nothing more to discover. You can retire and enjoy what you have left from your life.
I love, above all, two things about this. One, where you say, "...he doubled down on his appeal to himself," after he had used the logical fallacy of appeal to authority--his own. A bit arrogant! He makes a logical fallacy of himself!
And, along the same lines, what really shines through is that this professor with a PhD tries to heap scorn on the idea of a mere personal trainer knowing anything about the scientific method, as if that disqualifies you, when the PhD clearly not only doesn't know it himself, but also he clearly doesn't really know how to think. And he's a college professor, appealing to his own authority instead of demonstrating that he actually knows what he's talking about! Rather ironic. It is very entertaining to read this exchange and see him embarrassing himself over and over, with evidently no awareness of his own stupidity, or no capacity to even hear what you are saying. Either way, he's a sad example of an academic, though, I'm afraid, probably not a unique one.
Thanks, Betsy! Sadly, you are correct that Thomas is not a unique example in academia. He is the rule, not the exception. We definitely have an uphill battle trying to change that, which is why I do engage in and share these exchanges for others to see.
"Which is why I do engage in and share these exchanges for other to see." And.... thank God for your doing the absurdly needed exposing of this ongoing toxic extermination insanity! Surely, The truth and love is the only real 'cure' as we come together against this obvious (for those with eyes to see) global plot. Job (very) well done!!!
Thank you, Mike! 🙂
Hard to read that without wanting to say aloud, "What a retard."
Lol, I prefer "scientifically challenged." 😉
Mike, I noticed a very familiar stench from this guy. His denial of all facts is so reminiscent of the way COVID shots were pushed, coerced, and mandated long after they were proven not to work. It made absolutely no sense to put people out of work for exercising a personal choice that was proven to have absolutely no effect on anyone else. Yet, they did it anyway. They refused to listen or care that the facts did not support their tyrannical measure and in the process many people were severely harmed, put out of work, or even killed by the shots they reluctantly took to save their jobs. This just illustrates how dangerous this kind of thinking is. Pseudo-Science is a religious cult all of its own and you can't reason anyone out of it. If it wasn't real science that got them into this kind of darkness, we can't expect to use science to pull them out of it. It will require a spiritual awakening and a great dose of humility. Without that, real science doesn't stand a chance.
But, all of your arguments truly do serve a worthy cause even if it is impossible to get the blind to see. It serves as great education and practice for the rest of us. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Thanks so much for your good work!
Thanks, Rob! Using these conversations as a way to educate others on the mindsets of those that are entrenched in this pseudoscientific cult is exactly why I post articles like this. I'm glad that you enjoyed it! 🙂
This is what I call above and beyond the call of duty. You demonstrated perseverance and patience. I was reminded of a story about the avian flu this past week and a scientist saying he had been studying H5N1 for more than 20 years. How do you study something that doesn’t exist?
Thanks, Michael! It's impressive how they continue to fool themselves into believing that they are studying Santa Clause by looking at cookie crumbs, filled stockings, ashy footprints, and presents under the tree. 😉
Burki was another ghoul I absolutely eviscerated on TW prior to my suspension....easy to defeat them now, they really have no argument.....
Frankie Five Angels
Burki is like an annoying little gnat. I'm kept trying to shoo him away, but he didn't take the hint. 🤷♂️
Burki uses multiple Twitter accounts, by the way.
When They're paid to not see, They will not see... Kudos to You!!!
Thank you, Amaterasu Solar! 🙂
🙏🏻💜🙏🏻 If You're interested in a solution to the problem of People being paid to not see...or paid to hide things, say things, etc., let Me know and I will offer a link or two.
Love always!
I'm still undecided whether I should be happy that this guy is only up to mischief in a lab instead of a politician's chair. So it could be worse. I'm a hopeless optimist.
I wonder how these people exclude the possibility that they are leading themselves up the garden path with their methods, but apparently they have lost all shame as soon as they call up their bank balance. Good heavens, someone is paying money for this nonsense. The guy should be ashamed of himself.
I agree 1000%. I hope that Thomas sees the error of his ways, but I'm afraid that he is in too deep.
Without question, you're able to articulate very well with an amount of attention that many of us are tired of spending time discussing. You deserve a lot of credit for devoting incredible patience engaging "scientists" who try their hardest to claim those of us questioning "the science" are not knowledgeable enough to have such a conversation.
Hey @MIKESTONE - you can use ChatGPT to prove Thomas' own argument. ChatGPT even says, when asked, "Essentially, anything that happens in the universe without human intervention or manipulation can be considered a natural phenomenon."
I'll send you the graphic - definitely worth replying back to him. It couldn't be any more perfect!
Thank you, Ocloman. 🙂
They definitely try my patience, but I definitely feel that these conversations have the potential to be very educational.
Thanks Mike for this. I will use this to inform a bloke who believes in viruses. A clever bloke too. Lots and lots of credentials.
His latest claim to me are.
"As I already explained, viruses and even living CoV-2 have been observed in multiple states of their life by electron microscopes and confocal fluorescent microscopes. You can read about the latter case here, which includes 3D fluorescence images of SARS-CoV-2-infected ferret nasal turbinates, published already in 2021": he then cites https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8234815/
Thanks, Sunface Jack! They sure love their grainy black-and-white images with pointy arrows, don't they? 😉
What a great elucidation of the illogicality evinced by people to support an unsustainable argument. You have the patience of a saint, Mike.
I find I have similar if shorter types of engagement with people.
I've never heard of elephant hurling before but I've seen evidence of it and it's a great fallacy to have identified.
I think people's argument tends to lack logical fallacy not because they understand logic particularly well but because they're not invested in a particular belief they wish to fight for. What I believe makes people argue illogically is not a lack of understanding of logic - they can have written books on the subject but still resort to illogical argument - but investment in a particular belief. As social psychologist, Carole Wade, says:
“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.”
Bo Bennett, who has a PhD in social psychology and who describes himself as a critical thinker has written a reference of logical fallacies and a reference of cognitive biases. And yet he engaged in Argument from Incredulity and the No Discussion fallacy with me in response to my evidence-backed argument for there being no pandemic.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/master-list-of-logical-fallacies
No Discussion (also No Negotiation; the Control Voice; Peace through Strength; a Muscular Foreign Policy; Fascism): A pure Argumentum ad Baculum that rejects reasoned dialogue, offering either instant, unconditional compliance/surrender or defeat/death as the only two options for settling even minor differences, e.g., screaming "Get down on the ground, now!" or declaring "We don't talk to terrorists." This deadly fallacy falsely paints real or potential "hostiles" as monsters devoid of all reason, and far too often contains a very strong element of "machismo" as well. I.e. "A real, muscular leader never resorts to pantywaist pleading, apologies, excuses, fancy talk or argument. That's for lawyers, liars and pansies and is nothing but a delaying tactic. A real man stands tall, says what he thinks, draws fast and shoots to kill." The late actor John Wayne frequently portrayed this fallacy in his movie roles. See also, The Pout.
I'd love to see what happened if you went on his website, Mike. Anyone can register and post a question about what they believe is a logical fallacy or ask if people think that a claim constitutes a logical fallacy. www.logicallyfallacious.com
You post a link to the logical fallacy of Burden of Proof on the site Your Logical Fallacy is managed by Jesse Richardson who is really just like Bo Bennett, a slave to mainstream thinking.
It's just incredible!
Thanks for the comment and the suggestion, Petra! I really like the quote you shared.
The elephant hurling tactic seems to be a favorite that is commonly utilized by these people as they try to intimidate with numerous links to make it look like they have a wealth of evidence in order to scare people away. It all falls apart if we hold them to one link at a time and expose that the papers that they share do not contain the evidence that they claim that they do. We can show that these people are dishonest and do not even read what they link. That is why I will always call out this tactic and hold them accountable, asking them to explain where the specific evidence is within each and every link they share. These people regularly run away from doing so.
I really take my hat off to you for having the patience to do that, Mike. It's great to have as a record too to show how people argue so poorly.
Thank you, Petra. I agree that it is beneficial to record these encounters. I'm not so sure Thomas agrees. 😉
I'll tell you, if these ghouls are the best science has to offer, we are in bad shape as a society...it makes the virology deception that much worse....imbeciles like these are their best and brightest....
Did he take the shots?
The higher brain goes first.