Instigator / Pro
4
1438
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#553
Viruses can't exist.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
To prove that viruses don't exist. Answer these logic questions -
1. How did the first person to see a virus know that it was a virus without any references as to what a virus looks like?
2. How do viruses find their host if they have no legs, arms, eyes, ears, brains, sense of touch or means of locomotion?
3. How can something that is dead, suddenly come to life?
4. How can viruses survive in the atmosphere and sunlight without any walls for protection? (very fragile)
5. How does a entity (virus) that kills its host pass on its genes and what does it gain by killing the host?
6. If viruses are proteins, then why don't small insects like ants find them and eat them all?
Round 1
Pro
#1
Debate conditions - The rude and uncouth term "dropped" can't be used to describe any failure to respond to any statement or question. Flow and logic must be maintained which doesn't necessitate responding to every question and statement. Irrelevant, stupid and distracting statements may be ignored at the discretion of the debater.
To prove that viruses don't exist. Answer these logic questions -
1. How did the first person to see a virus know that it was a virus without any references as to what a virus looks like?
2. How do viruses find their host if they have no legs, arms, eyes, ears, brains, sense of touch or means of locomotion?
3. How can something that is dead, suddenly come to life?
4. How can viruses survive in the atmosphere and sunlight without any walls for protection? (very fragile)
5. How does a entity (virus) that kills its host pass on its genes and what does it gain by killing the host?
6. If viruses are proteins, then why don't small insects like ants find them and eat them all?
Con
#2
Rules
My opponent feels he can arbitrarily and unilaterally demand that the rules be changed in his opening round. As these rules were not agreed, this is obviously an unfair attempt to change the rules after the fact, and I would encourage all voters to treat this as a conduct violation.
The rules pro demands also run contrary to standard debate practices: debate participants use term frequently to point out when an opponent has ignored a point being raised[1]. I will however, use “ignored” in place of “dropped” as a result as a courtesy.
My opponent is free to ignore whatever argument he chosen, and I would encourage voters to vote accordingly if my opponent ignores a key aspect of my contention
Viruses.
Viruses are small disease causing agents that are typically much smaller than bacteria. They operate by penetrating the cell of a host, and using that cell to replicate the viral unit.[2]
Transmissible disease causing agents
Since almost the dawn of man, humans have know that there are diseases that one human can transmit to another, it has been known that plague, leprocacy, and others can be caught from other human beings.[3][4]
While it has been known for a while that many types of illness were communicable, it was not clear how, or what caused them.
While bacteria were isolated and discovered earliest - as they are larger, multiple experiments that infect organisms and cells using filters that are too small to allow bacteria through have repeatedly demonstrated that specific illnesses and infections can be transferred from one organism to another and are not down to bacteria.[5][6]
The first of these was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, where it was demonstrated that plants can be infected with filtered water from diseases plants. With the filtration being so small as to rule out bacteria.[7]
One of the important things was that when the water was filtrated it could be shown that boiling the water removed the cause of whatever was producing the infection. [8].
However since then multiple agents have been discovered and isolated by similar methods.[9][10]
Infections agent:
The important aspects of the experiments mentioned, is that they establish the transmission as an agent that is present in the infected cells that can be transferred, rather than simply a product of environment itself by virtue that transfer of the virus in tiny amounts to another is can be just as deadly[5].
This combined with key aspects of outbreaks patterns that occur, where the infection of a population can be traced to an infection transmitted between people rather than a result of environmental factors, allows us to confirm the individual experimental results, against what we see in the real world.
At this point, the evidence shows that we have sets of infections isolated in outbreaks that appear to be related to transmission between organisms - rather than the environment, and we can show that there appears to be an agent infecting the organisms that is 100 times smaller than bacteria, and appears to replicate within the organism.
The cause of Illnesses that fit this criteria were called viruses - as they all had very similar properties.
Cultures
Armed with this information, virologists were able to subsequently grow and harvests viruses for experimentation.
While viruses do not grow and divide the same way as bacteria - as they require a host cell to grow, one of the easiest way to demonstrate the microscopic disease causing agents exist, and world are through cell cultures.
Specifically, cells of a given type that a virus infects can be used to grow viruses, and the effects can be observed and studies by looking at those cells and that cells chemistry[5][12]
Imaging
From these cultures, and filtering it has been possible not just to determine that an infection agent exists that is transmissible between cells, but to formally grow the viruses well enough that infectious cells can be analyzed and pictures taken with a imaging methods that can resolve small enough objects.
A simple example is by spinning a sample of infected serum in a centrifuge, knowing the virus will be concentrated in regions by specific weight (that is what a centrifuge does), you can find this out through virulence experimentation [5], then compare a sample of this to a regular uninfected serum under an electron microscope.
The only difference with these two samples is the viral load is concentrated in one, and doesn’t exist in the other.[13\
The method of analyzing infected samples under an electron microscope to find unexpected infections agents that are not in uninfected samples should be uncontentious.
Summary.
A summary of the evidence above puts the existence of viruses beyond any reasonable doubt.
We know infection patterns match transmission between people, and from infected sources; we know the size of the objects are 100 times smaller than bacteria due to filtering experiments, and these agents replicate within the cells, we are able to culture these infections agents, and when we take images of infected fluids, we invariably see multiple objects of different types throughout the solution that we do not see in any other uninfected sample, and ubiquitously match other infections of the same kind photographed elsewhere.
As a result of the evidence presented above, I have provided categorically evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that viruses do indeed exist
Questions.
Pro asks a series of questions. Pro presents these as if necessary to answer in order to prove viruses exist, however pro doesn’t make clear why or how these questions would “prove” viruses exists, as I can easily see it being possible to answer those questions satisfactorily even in a scenario where the subject is obviously wrong or doesn’t exist.
As a facile example, I could provide an answer for each one of these questions but about infections futuristic nanobots - and it would not make their existent any more or less likely.
However as shown, above: it is possible to separately and independently prove viruses exist, regardless of whether it is or is not possible to answer pros questions. Which fundamentally undermines both the questions, and the necessity for me to answer them.
However, I will attempt to answer them as a courtesy, even though I have already demonstrated that viruses exist.
My opponent feels he can arbitrarily and unilaterally demand that the rules be changed in his opening round. As these rules were not agreed, this is obviously an unfair attempt to change the rules after the fact, and I would encourage all voters to treat this as a conduct violation.
The rules pro demands also run contrary to standard debate practices: debate participants use term frequently to point out when an opponent has ignored a point being raised[1]. I will however, use “ignored” in place of “dropped” as a result as a courtesy.
My opponent is free to ignore whatever argument he chosen, and I would encourage voters to vote accordingly if my opponent ignores a key aspect of my contention
Viruses.
Viruses are small disease causing agents that are typically much smaller than bacteria. They operate by penetrating the cell of a host, and using that cell to replicate the viral unit.[2]
Transmissible disease causing agents
Since almost the dawn of man, humans have know that there are diseases that one human can transmit to another, it has been known that plague, leprocacy, and others can be caught from other human beings.[3][4]
While it has been known for a while that many types of illness were communicable, it was not clear how, or what caused them.
While bacteria were isolated and discovered earliest - as they are larger, multiple experiments that infect organisms and cells using filters that are too small to allow bacteria through have repeatedly demonstrated that specific illnesses and infections can be transferred from one organism to another and are not down to bacteria.[5][6]
The first of these was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, where it was demonstrated that plants can be infected with filtered water from diseases plants. With the filtration being so small as to rule out bacteria.[7]
One of the important things was that when the water was filtrated it could be shown that boiling the water removed the cause of whatever was producing the infection. [8].
However since then multiple agents have been discovered and isolated by similar methods.[9][10]
Infections agent:
The important aspects of the experiments mentioned, is that they establish the transmission as an agent that is present in the infected cells that can be transferred, rather than simply a product of environment itself by virtue that transfer of the virus in tiny amounts to another is can be just as deadly[5].
This combined with key aspects of outbreaks patterns that occur, where the infection of a population can be traced to an infection transmitted between people rather than a result of environmental factors, allows us to confirm the individual experimental results, against what we see in the real world.
At this point, the evidence shows that we have sets of infections isolated in outbreaks that appear to be related to transmission between organisms - rather than the environment, and we can show that there appears to be an agent infecting the organisms that is 100 times smaller than bacteria, and appears to replicate within the organism.
The cause of Illnesses that fit this criteria were called viruses - as they all had very similar properties.
Cultures
Armed with this information, virologists were able to subsequently grow and harvests viruses for experimentation.
While viruses do not grow and divide the same way as bacteria - as they require a host cell to grow, one of the easiest way to demonstrate the microscopic disease causing agents exist, and world are through cell cultures.
Specifically, cells of a given type that a virus infects can be used to grow viruses, and the effects can be observed and studies by looking at those cells and that cells chemistry[5][12]
Imaging
From these cultures, and filtering it has been possible not just to determine that an infection agent exists that is transmissible between cells, but to formally grow the viruses well enough that infectious cells can be analyzed and pictures taken with a imaging methods that can resolve small enough objects.
A simple example is by spinning a sample of infected serum in a centrifuge, knowing the virus will be concentrated in regions by specific weight (that is what a centrifuge does), you can find this out through virulence experimentation [5], then compare a sample of this to a regular uninfected serum under an electron microscope.
The only difference with these two samples is the viral load is concentrated in one, and doesn’t exist in the other.[13\
The method of analyzing infected samples under an electron microscope to find unexpected infections agents that are not in uninfected samples should be uncontentious.
Summary.
A summary of the evidence above puts the existence of viruses beyond any reasonable doubt.
We know infection patterns match transmission between people, and from infected sources; we know the size of the objects are 100 times smaller than bacteria due to filtering experiments, and these agents replicate within the cells, we are able to culture these infections agents, and when we take images of infected fluids, we invariably see multiple objects of different types throughout the solution that we do not see in any other uninfected sample, and ubiquitously match other infections of the same kind photographed elsewhere.
As a result of the evidence presented above, I have provided categorically evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that viruses do indeed exist
Questions.
Pro asks a series of questions. Pro presents these as if necessary to answer in order to prove viruses exist, however pro doesn’t make clear why or how these questions would “prove” viruses exists, as I can easily see it being possible to answer those questions satisfactorily even in a scenario where the subject is obviously wrong or doesn’t exist.
As a facile example, I could provide an answer for each one of these questions but about infections futuristic nanobots - and it would not make their existent any more or less likely.
However as shown, above: it is possible to separately and independently prove viruses exist, regardless of whether it is or is not possible to answer pros questions. Which fundamentally undermines both the questions, and the necessity for me to answer them.
However, I will attempt to answer them as a courtesy, even though I have already demonstrated that viruses exist.
1.) How did the first person to see a virus know that it was a virus without any references as to what a virus looks like?
This was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, they were looking for a new particle that appeared inside individual plant cells that were unhealthy be not in those that were healthy. [7]
Multiple different techniques on multiple different viruses, and multiple replications demonstrate this was not just a “one off”[13]
“2. How do viruses find their host if they have no legs, arms, eyes, ears, brains, sense of touch or means of locomotion?”
Viruses don’t “find” their hosts. There is no intent or locomotion. Viruses are simply transferred from one host to another via infected bodily fluids, touch, etc.[14]
“3. How can something that is dead, suddenly come to life?”
It is not clear what this means, I have not heard any requirement in any aspect of virology or germ theory that requires this to be true.
“4. How can viruses survive in the atmosphere and sunlight without any walls for protection? (very fragile)”
Many don’t. Most survive only in body fluids, of in individual hosts, or in any number of different locations outside of the atmosphere.[15]
This should be obvious from the evidence. People don’t catch the flu today just by being outside, we have to be fairly close to someone else with the flu to catch it - mainly because the flu can’t last very long outside the body.
“5. How does a entity (virus) that kills its host pass on its genes and what does it gain by killing the host?”
Nothing. The most successful viruses do not often kill their host. Cold and flu are rarely fatal. While many viruses can be fatal, or potentially fatal, as long as at least one new host is infected before the previous host dies, the infection can spread.
“6. If viruses are proteins, then why don't small insects like ants find them and eat them all?”
This question is frankly so absurd it barely warrants a response.
Ants and small inspects currently eat plant matter, yet there are still plants. If ants are not able to wipe out all plants, why do you feel they would be able to wipe out viruses?
Viruses are simply too small to make them a viable calorific source of food compared to ubiquitous plant matter.
Conclusion:
i have both shown viruses exist, and answered all of pros questions - despite them being clearly irrelevant to virology or modern germ theory.
Sources:
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leper_colony
[4] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html
[5]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048519/?page=1
[6]http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/pages/tmv.aspx
[7]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_mosaic_virus
[8] https://books.google.ca/books?id=ew1fR6ghsmgC&pg=PA3&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
[9]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccinia
[10] https://rybicki.blog/tag/chamberland-filter/
[11]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreak
[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850366/
[13]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2772359/
[14]https://www.sharecare.com/health/viral-infections/how-are-viral-infections-spread
[15] https://jamaicahospital.org/newsletter/?p=1423
Round 2
Pro
#3
Firstly it needs to be established that disease has only 2 primary causes.
1. Vitamin deficiency
2. Chemical poisoning.
Note - Genetic mutation is mostly caused by vitamin deficiency, thus, it is not a 3rd cause.
Latin root meaning of the word virus - a poison or toxin.
Any other explanation other than these 2 reasons should be considered either as frauds or secondary symptoms of disease only.
Thus, these 2 explanations are sufficient to cover all of the so called many different diseases of mankind and plants.
Since almost the dawn of man, humans have know that there are diseases that one human can transmit to another, it has been known that plague, leprocacy, and others can be caught from other human beings
Sorry, con, but disease only started occurring when humans began to live in towns and grow agricultural crops. Disease is a result of redirecting nature into purposes that it was never meant for. Recent research has shown that agricultural products are unsuitable to the human digestive system and cause gut bacteria to leak into the blood stream. This is the main cause of the vast number of diseases of mankind many of which are blamed on so called "viruses". The medical system knows this, but they choose to ignore these facts because there is more prestige and money to be made from the 'germ theory of disease'. Just telling people not to eat grain, sugar and dairy won't pay the bills and doctors will all die poor. Thus, there is a general conspiracy of silence about the dietary cause of disease which only people who have bothered to do their own research would find out about.
Note - When disease theory was first developed people didn't know about the role of vitamins and leaky gut syndrome in health related issues. Thus, the medical professionals were just guessing when they assumed germs or viruses were causing disease to occur. Initially, this was just a case of innocent misunderstanding, but as time goes by, the innocence is slowly being replaced by devious manipulation and profiteering. Nowadays, there are no more excuses for this ignorance of the true cause of disease to continue. There is sufficient evidence and online avenues which clearly show that the old ways of thinking about disease need to be changed immediately.
Note - Scurvy of the intestine. (vitamin c deficiency.)
Thus, why go looking for tiny weeny microbes as being the cause of disease when you have a clear evidence based system which can be easily proven.
To test my theory - Just eat nothing but grain, sugar and dairy for a day or two and you will soon become as sick as a dog in no time. Thus, no expensive lab testing is required and you can do it all from the comfort of your own lounge room. Note - To cure your illness. Just stop eating sugar, grain and dairy and replace it with fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, fish and nuts. Note - No doctor required.
The first of these was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, where it was demonstrated that plants can be infected with filtered water from diseases plants. With the filtration being so small as to rule out bacteria.[7]
I have inspected your reference (6) and found that the primary cause of the problem was soil nutrient depletion.
However tobacco, as all other successful crops, is often subject to continuous cultivation as monocultures (planting large tracts of a single crop, often times year-after-year inthe same plot of land). As a result of intensive cultivation, tobacco depletes the soil of essential nutrients and the plants become more susceptible to disease.
Thus, we can plainly see that germs are merely a secondary phase of the disease process and are not the primary or initial cause of disease. Thus, the plants would have deteriorated, withered and died regardless of there being any germs or viruses present. Thus, the farmer is tricked into using pesticides to kill said "viruses" which would add considerably to his ongoing costs. Thus, we can see that the university system and pharmaceutical companies work in co-operation to deceive the public and make them pay exorbitant fees for eradicating these invisible "viruses" which don't exist. All the farmer needed to do was to add some fertiliser to the ground and to rest the earth for a while so that the nutrients could be put back into the ground again. Note - Healthy plants need healthy soil to thrive. Thus, you can't just keep taking and taking from the soil every year and expect plants to keep on giving you a return. You need to put back what you take away. This is called logic. Its the mathematics of give and take. The equation must always balance. If it doesn't balance, then somebody or something has to pay the price for the imbalance.
The false concept of a contagion.
In times past, villages and cities used to have a well in the centre of each town. Every now and then, a small animal would fall into the well. The animal would die and start rotting in the water. People who lived closest to the well would get sick and die. Then, gradually, people further away from the well would get sick and die. Some clever people would see a pattern of how the disease spreads. They would see a gradual widening of concentric circles from a central point. Thus, was born the theory of the contagious disease. They assumed that an invisible agent was responsible usually carried by some insect or small animal. Rats, fleas, birds and mosquitoes are the most often used culprits which carry these diseases. That's mostly because these creatures are very unpopular and most importantly, they can't talk back. Thus, they are excellent candidates for blame and abuse. Thus, the people who are in charge of looking after the well, will escape prosecution and blame because they have a viable scapegoat. Wonderful! Everything is so neat and tidy now and nobody goes to jail for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people.
Pro asks a series of questions. Pro presents these as if necessary to answer in order to prove viruses exist, however pro doesn’t make clear why or how these questions would “prove” viruses exists, as I can easily see it being possible to answer those questions satisfactorily even in a scenario where the subject is obviously wrong or doesn’t exist.
Sorry con, pro asks to you to answer questions to prove that viruses don't exist, not do exist.
1.) How did the first person to see a virus know that it was a virus without any references as to what a virus looks like?This was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, they were looking for a new particle that appeared inside individual plant cells that were unhealthy be not in those that were healthy. [7]
What reference did they use con? Can't you read? Note - You can't identify something without a reference to what it looks like. This is not a logical response by con.
2. How do viruses find their host if they have no legs, arms, eyes, ears, brains, sense of touch or means of locomotion?”
Viruses don’t “find” their hosts. There is no intent or locomotion. Viruses are simply transferred from one host to another via infected bodily fluids, touch, etc.[14]
Very true con, viruses don't or can't find their host because they have no senses or means of locomotion.
This should be obvious from the evidence. People don’t catch the flu today just by being outside, we have to be fairly close to someone else with the flu to catch it - mainly because the flu can’t last very long outside the body.
Its funny how people only catch the flu when they eat bad diets. Just a coincidence? Its funny how the flu pops up randomly without warning or contact with other humans. I never get the flu because I eat a proper diet. Whereas, my wife doesn't eat a proper diet and she gets the flu all the time. Funny that! And I never catch her flu as well. Shame.......... Isn't it! lol
“6. If viruses are proteins, then why don't small insects like ants find them and eat them all?”
This question is frankly so absurd it barely warrants a response.Ants and small inspects currently eat plant matter, yet there are still plants. If ants are not able to wipe out all plants, why do you feel they would be able to wipe out viruses?
The reality is, that none of my questions have any logical answers. The only answers that you can get to any of them have to be just totally made up nonsense and complete drivel. And that's exactly what you supplied. Thanks for your co-operation. lol
Note - Very few species of ants eat just plant matter. Most ant species are omnivorous. Wrong again.
Con
#4
Rules:
Pro ignores my argument on his attempt to unilaterally change the rules in round 1. Voters should note his silence here as consent.
Existence of Viruses.
In Round 1, I provided a detailed explanation, and evidence that walks through how we can be certain that viruses exist.
To summarize
1.) Some illnesses can be transmitted from one organism to another. We can take sap from a diseased plant (or serum from a diseased bird), and transmit it to another plant, or bird which then falls ill.
These experiment prove there is some specific agent in these samples that produce and transfer the illness.
Pro ignores this point.
As these produce infection in otherwise healthy cells, this demonstrably proves conclusively these illnesses are nothing to do with diet of nutrients in the soil - as the only factor determining whether or not the organism being studied becomes diseased, is exposure to specific infected material.
2.) Viral cultures demonstrate conclusively that the agent that causes these illnesses is not just transmissible, but also replicates - specifically showing that it doesn’t really matter how small the initial sample is, it can infect and kill massive numbers of cells. Over and over again.
Single samples can infect massive batches of viral cultures, from which single samples can be taken to infect other massive batches of viral cultures.
This proves conclusively the agent in the initial infections sample, replicates and thus disproves the possibility that these illnesses are caused by toxins.
Pro ignores this point.
3.) In addition, it is shown that the boiling the samples between transfer prevents infection. This proves conclusively that the replicating agent that produces the infection is biological in nature.
Pro ignores this point.
4.) From experiments, we can tell that there is a biological agent, smaller than a particular size that replicates within cells.
This means that if you had a microscope powerful enough, you could compare images of healthy serum with diseased serum to see if there are any agents or objects in one sample that aren’t in the other.
In the case of viral infections, experiments and images repeatedly show that whenever there is a given type of infection, the sample of diseased cell has small agents floating in it that don’t exist in healthy cells.
This conclusively proves viruses exist. Pro ignores this point.
Diet/Toxins
While I have gone through and detailed the experiments, the evidence, and why it shows viruses exist: pro has decided to simply assert his opinions about what he thinks causes disease.
If voters pay attention, he is simply telling you that all of the examples are explained by diet or toxins. Pro offers no controlled experiment, or argument as to why the data conclusively supports a dietary cause of viral infections: he simply asserts that it is so.
As a result pro is attempting to make an argument by assertion - simply telling you I am wrong is not sufficient, and must be rejected.
While there are many dietary diseases, and toxin based diseases: dietary or toxin causes cannot explain viral diseases for the following reasons:
1.) As shown above, viral diseases can be experimentally confirmed to be transmissible - dietary diseases are not transmissible. You can’t catch scurvy or rickets from someone else.
2.) As shown above, viral diseases can be experimentally confirmed to replicate - ruling out both toxins and dietary causes.
3.) Outbreak patterns of viral diseases don’t match that of toxins or diet.
For dietary diseases caused by lack of nutrients, it is to be expected that the disease should be present in ANY locations where the diet is sufficiently bad to cause the illness - regardless of the location or non dietary controls.[1]
IE: you would expect illnesses based on diet to have prevalence that correlates with a persons diets. For example, you would expect diabetes to correlate with high sugar diets, you would expect heart disease to correlate with high sugar high fat diets. You would expect scurvy to correlate with low vitamin c intake.[2]
For toxin or environmental diseases, you would expect correlation to the source of the harmful agent. And not exist outside that area.
For example, you would not have people with asbestosis that never had any contact with a source of asbestos, or have acute radiation syndrome if they had never been irradiated.
Viruses, and bacteria - have outbreaks that correlate with individual contact. STDs correlate with being in sexual contact with other people with the STD - never trust someone who says they caught herpes from not eating fruit.[3]
Given this, while the effects of diet on the human body are complex, and diet is a key indicator of health in general - some diseases are caused by a viral infection.
You will most assuredly feel better and be less ill if you have a better diet. No one disagrees with this. But leaping to the conclusion that eating healthily will stop you getting disease that can be probably shown to be caused by infections
Agent, is wholly unwarranted.
4.) Smallpox has been eradicated, dietary diseases have not.
A major disproof of pros contention is that many diseases have been close to eradicated - and smallpox famously has been completely eradicated[4], where as other diseases pro claims are caused by bad diet remain. Why did smallpox dissappear, if the dietary conditions that cause it still remain? Because smallpox is not dietary, but viral. And the virus pattern of replication and infection was halted by human intervention.
Minor points:
Pro asserts Tobacco Mosaic Disease is cause by nutrient poor soil.
As shown in the experiment, plants were and remained healthy until a disease source was introduced. This demonstrates the cause of the disease is the agent in the filtered sap - not produced by deficiencies of the soil.
Pro asserts that there was no disease before cities and agriculture.
There is literally no possible way for pro to know this is true, and pro offers no evidence - thus this should be rejected as unsupported.
It is also untrue. We have evidence of the diseases in humans and other organisms way before cities came along [5][6]
In addition, Wild animals also suffer from diseases and illness all over the planet, regardless of having a good diet[7]
In addition, hunter gatherer tribes in north/south America that did not have cities, or use agriculture - and have yet been decimated by infections when they have been brought over by settlers.[8]
This makes no sense if caused by diet. How can an illness sweep through populations that don’t use agriculture or live in cities; and is based on diet, if nothing changes in these populations other than being exposed to geographically remote human beings?
False correlation with poisoned wells.
Pro states, that poisoning of wells were misconstrued as viral outbreaks.
Some diseases, caused by bacteria in fecal matter or decaying corpses are present in the water supply.
We know these are caused by contaminated water. We also know these types of disease is caused by very very large organic objects that replicate - as we can culture the organic objects and use those cultures to produce infect in animals, and we can both boil or filter the water to make it safe to consume.
That aside, that’s only one type of disease. Illnesses caused by viruses, such as smallpox are different.
You have an out break source, and it spreads. It spreads around the village regardless of what water supplies are being used, and makes its way to other villages alongside people who travel.[1]
These can’t be explained simply by diseased wells.
Questions mop up.
Pictures:
“What reference did they use con? Can't you read? Note - You can't identify something without a reference to what it looks like. This is not a logical response by con.”
Pro should try not to be so rude.
As I explained in my opening round and clarified. While scientists didn’t know what a virus would look like, they had the following information that would allow them to confirm that what they saw was the cause of a disease, if viruses were the cause of that disease
Given that, not knowing what a virus looked like in no way prevented them from identifying what they saw as the cause of the disease
“Its funny how people only catch the flu when they eat bad diets.”
Pro asserts this with absolutely no evidence or justification.
Pro is not entitled to his own proprietary evidence or facts, and if he has data that supports this, he should show it.
Otherwise, I cannot disprove evidence that pro has not presented.
In reality we know that smallpox - for example doesn’t pop up out of no where like he claims flu does.
We know polio, tetanus, HIV and rabies don’t simply pop up out of no where if you have a poor diet. You have to have specific exposure to infected water, infected cut or sore, direct contact with infected blood or sex with an infected person, and contact with an infected animals saliva.
Questions in general.
Viruses are biological particles of protein and RNA that replicate in a particular type of host cell, by using enzymes and the cells internal DNA replication mechanisms to make the cell replicate the virus.
Disease is caused by this process killing or disrupting enough of the cells to impact the function of the host in general.
When cells die, it releases a flood of these viruses into the host to infect other cells, and in many cases, causes the virus to spread through pores, fluids, touch, etc external to the host to infect others.
None of the questions asked by pro has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not such a particle exists or can exist.
Nor does any of these questions have any relevance to the detailed proof I gave that viruses do indeed exist in the opening round.
As a result, these questions and their answers neither prove nor disprove the existence of viruses and should be treated as irrelevant to the contention: and nothing more than a silly rhetorical ploy used in lieu of a meaningful or justified attack on the actual science involved.
Summary
Pro fails to support his burden of proof by showing that any evidence or argument that viruses can’t exist.
Pro fails to show any argument or evidence that viral diseases are caused by diet - relying on mostly unwarranted assertions that are not supported by data’s
Pro fails to address any of the detailed proof offered in round 1.
Sources
[1]https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/fem/w/wiki/types-of-outbreak
[2]https://pmj.bmj.com/content/80/942/224
[3]https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/01/16/sti-information/
[4] https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/
[5] https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earliest-evidence-of-tb-may-have-been-found-in-a-245millionyearold-fossil/
[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/6697?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
[7]https://www.highveld.com/virology/animal-viruses.html
[8]http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/pox_weapon_01.shtml
Pro ignores my argument on his attempt to unilaterally change the rules in round 1. Voters should note his silence here as consent.
Existence of Viruses.
In Round 1, I provided a detailed explanation, and evidence that walks through how we can be certain that viruses exist.
To summarize
1.) Some illnesses can be transmitted from one organism to another. We can take sap from a diseased plant (or serum from a diseased bird), and transmit it to another plant, or bird which then falls ill.
These experiment prove there is some specific agent in these samples that produce and transfer the illness.
Pro ignores this point.
As these produce infection in otherwise healthy cells, this demonstrably proves conclusively these illnesses are nothing to do with diet of nutrients in the soil - as the only factor determining whether or not the organism being studied becomes diseased, is exposure to specific infected material.
2.) Viral cultures demonstrate conclusively that the agent that causes these illnesses is not just transmissible, but also replicates - specifically showing that it doesn’t really matter how small the initial sample is, it can infect and kill massive numbers of cells. Over and over again.
Single samples can infect massive batches of viral cultures, from which single samples can be taken to infect other massive batches of viral cultures.
This proves conclusively the agent in the initial infections sample, replicates and thus disproves the possibility that these illnesses are caused by toxins.
Pro ignores this point.
3.) In addition, it is shown that the boiling the samples between transfer prevents infection. This proves conclusively that the replicating agent that produces the infection is biological in nature.
Pro ignores this point.
4.) From experiments, we can tell that there is a biological agent, smaller than a particular size that replicates within cells.
This means that if you had a microscope powerful enough, you could compare images of healthy serum with diseased serum to see if there are any agents or objects in one sample that aren’t in the other.
In the case of viral infections, experiments and images repeatedly show that whenever there is a given type of infection, the sample of diseased cell has small agents floating in it that don’t exist in healthy cells.
This conclusively proves viruses exist. Pro ignores this point.
Diet/Toxins
While I have gone through and detailed the experiments, the evidence, and why it shows viruses exist: pro has decided to simply assert his opinions about what he thinks causes disease.
If voters pay attention, he is simply telling you that all of the examples are explained by diet or toxins. Pro offers no controlled experiment, or argument as to why the data conclusively supports a dietary cause of viral infections: he simply asserts that it is so.
As a result pro is attempting to make an argument by assertion - simply telling you I am wrong is not sufficient, and must be rejected.
While there are many dietary diseases, and toxin based diseases: dietary or toxin causes cannot explain viral diseases for the following reasons:
1.) As shown above, viral diseases can be experimentally confirmed to be transmissible - dietary diseases are not transmissible. You can’t catch scurvy or rickets from someone else.
2.) As shown above, viral diseases can be experimentally confirmed to replicate - ruling out both toxins and dietary causes.
3.) Outbreak patterns of viral diseases don’t match that of toxins or diet.
For dietary diseases caused by lack of nutrients, it is to be expected that the disease should be present in ANY locations where the diet is sufficiently bad to cause the illness - regardless of the location or non dietary controls.[1]
IE: you would expect illnesses based on diet to have prevalence that correlates with a persons diets. For example, you would expect diabetes to correlate with high sugar diets, you would expect heart disease to correlate with high sugar high fat diets. You would expect scurvy to correlate with low vitamin c intake.[2]
For toxin or environmental diseases, you would expect correlation to the source of the harmful agent. And not exist outside that area.
For example, you would not have people with asbestosis that never had any contact with a source of asbestos, or have acute radiation syndrome if they had never been irradiated.
Viruses, and bacteria - have outbreaks that correlate with individual contact. STDs correlate with being in sexual contact with other people with the STD - never trust someone who says they caught herpes from not eating fruit.[3]
Given this, while the effects of diet on the human body are complex, and diet is a key indicator of health in general - some diseases are caused by a viral infection.
You will most assuredly feel better and be less ill if you have a better diet. No one disagrees with this. But leaping to the conclusion that eating healthily will stop you getting disease that can be probably shown to be caused by infections
Agent, is wholly unwarranted.
4.) Smallpox has been eradicated, dietary diseases have not.
A major disproof of pros contention is that many diseases have been close to eradicated - and smallpox famously has been completely eradicated[4], where as other diseases pro claims are caused by bad diet remain. Why did smallpox dissappear, if the dietary conditions that cause it still remain? Because smallpox is not dietary, but viral. And the virus pattern of replication and infection was halted by human intervention.
Minor points:
Pro asserts Tobacco Mosaic Disease is cause by nutrient poor soil.
As shown in the experiment, plants were and remained healthy until a disease source was introduced. This demonstrates the cause of the disease is the agent in the filtered sap - not produced by deficiencies of the soil.
Pro asserts that there was no disease before cities and agriculture.
There is literally no possible way for pro to know this is true, and pro offers no evidence - thus this should be rejected as unsupported.
It is also untrue. We have evidence of the diseases in humans and other organisms way before cities came along [5][6]
In addition, Wild animals also suffer from diseases and illness all over the planet, regardless of having a good diet[7]
In addition, hunter gatherer tribes in north/south America that did not have cities, or use agriculture - and have yet been decimated by infections when they have been brought over by settlers.[8]
This makes no sense if caused by diet. How can an illness sweep through populations that don’t use agriculture or live in cities; and is based on diet, if nothing changes in these populations other than being exposed to geographically remote human beings?
False correlation with poisoned wells.
Pro states, that poisoning of wells were misconstrued as viral outbreaks.
Some diseases, caused by bacteria in fecal matter or decaying corpses are present in the water supply.
We know these are caused by contaminated water. We also know these types of disease is caused by very very large organic objects that replicate - as we can culture the organic objects and use those cultures to produce infect in animals, and we can both boil or filter the water to make it safe to consume.
That aside, that’s only one type of disease. Illnesses caused by viruses, such as smallpox are different.
You have an out break source, and it spreads. It spreads around the village regardless of what water supplies are being used, and makes its way to other villages alongside people who travel.[1]
These can’t be explained simply by diseased wells.
Questions mop up.
Pictures:
“What reference did they use con? Can't you read? Note - You can't identify something without a reference to what it looks like. This is not a logical response by con.”
Pro should try not to be so rude.
As I explained in my opening round and clarified. While scientists didn’t know what a virus would look like, they had the following information that would allow them to confirm that what they saw was the cause of a disease, if viruses were the cause of that disease
- They would be less than 0.1 microns in size
- They would be present in diseased serum and sap in large quantities.
- They would not be present in healthy serum and sap processed in identical ways.
- They would be present in multiple disparate samples, and look similar in each example.
Given that, not knowing what a virus looked like in no way prevented them from identifying what they saw as the cause of the disease
“Its funny how people only catch the flu when they eat bad diets.”
Pro asserts this with absolutely no evidence or justification.
Pro is not entitled to his own proprietary evidence or facts, and if he has data that supports this, he should show it.
Otherwise, I cannot disprove evidence that pro has not presented.
In reality we know that smallpox - for example doesn’t pop up out of no where like he claims flu does.
We know polio, tetanus, HIV and rabies don’t simply pop up out of no where if you have a poor diet. You have to have specific exposure to infected water, infected cut or sore, direct contact with infected blood or sex with an infected person, and contact with an infected animals saliva.
Questions in general.
Viruses are biological particles of protein and RNA that replicate in a particular type of host cell, by using enzymes and the cells internal DNA replication mechanisms to make the cell replicate the virus.
Disease is caused by this process killing or disrupting enough of the cells to impact the function of the host in general.
When cells die, it releases a flood of these viruses into the host to infect other cells, and in many cases, causes the virus to spread through pores, fluids, touch, etc external to the host to infect others.
None of the questions asked by pro has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not such a particle exists or can exist.
Nor does any of these questions have any relevance to the detailed proof I gave that viruses do indeed exist in the opening round.
As a result, these questions and their answers neither prove nor disprove the existence of viruses and should be treated as irrelevant to the contention: and nothing more than a silly rhetorical ploy used in lieu of a meaningful or justified attack on the actual science involved.
Summary
Pro fails to support his burden of proof by showing that any evidence or argument that viruses can’t exist.
Pro fails to show any argument or evidence that viral diseases are caused by diet - relying on mostly unwarranted assertions that are not supported by data’s
Pro fails to address any of the detailed proof offered in round 1.
As a result, he has not only failed to meet his own burden of proof, but completely fails to provide any direct arguments against the fact presented.
Sources
[1]https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/fem/w/wiki/types-of-outbreak
[2]https://pmj.bmj.com/content/80/942/224
[3]https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/01/16/sti-information/
[4] https://www.who.int/csr/disease/smallpox/en/
[5] https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earliest-evidence-of-tb-may-have-been-found-in-a-245millionyearold-fossil/
[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/6697?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
[7]https://www.highveld.com/virology/animal-viruses.html
[8]http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/pox_weapon_01.shtml
Round 3
Pro
#5
Cons argument still has a basic logic flaw - If the virus is the cause of the disease. Then what can stop the disease? If you follow the silly logic of germ theory. Then, one small virus should kill all animals on Earth in about one year. Why are some animals protected from disease? What is protecting them? Well, vitamins are the only logical answer to this question. Con may say that the immune system protects them. But the immune system is a vitamin dependent system which can't operate without the proper vitamins. The immune system needs vitamin C and D especially. Vitamin C is the healing vitamin and vitamin D is the bacteria killer and messenger vitamin.
1.) Some illnesses can be transmitted from one organism to another. We can take sap from a diseased plant (or serum from a diseased bird), and transmit it to another plant, or bird which then falls ill.These experiment prove there is some specific agent in these samples that produce and transfer the illness.
If you transmit diseased fluid unnaturally from one plant to another plant, then, you are infecting the new plant with the toxins of the diseased plant. Thus, you haven't really proven anything. Nature doesn't have any syringes to inject disease from one animal to another. Thus, this example is just laboratory based stupidity. The experiment needs to demonstrate the transmission of the disease through natural means and not through petri dishes and syringes.
We also need to consider that laboratories are funded by pharmaceutical companies and they all have a vested interest in keeping the germ theory of disease alive and well. The pharmaceutical industry needs germ theory because that's where 99% of the income comes from. Thus, no laboratory is ever going to do an experiment that disproves the germ theory of disease because they would be cutting their own throats. Thus, we can't trust any laboratory experiment and need to rely on logic and commonsense to solve this issue.
Note - There are a few doctors out there that support the vitamin deficiency cause of all disease as the video evidence below shows.
2.) As shown above, viral diseases can be experimentally confirmed to replicate - ruling out both toxins and dietary causes.
Did any of the lab experiments that you have shown have a diet or toxin based control group? Answer - None of them
Thus, you are just making stuff up and the information is illogical, corrupted and faulty.
3.) Outbreak patterns of viral diseases don’t match that of toxins or diet
More faulty information. Disease will exactly follow vitamin deficiency and toxins and not differ one iota. This was demonstrated in World War I with the consequential out break of disease. (Spanish flu) After many years of war in Europe the farming land was destroyed which resulted in massive food shortages. This resulted in massive out breaks of disease. Thus, we can plainly see that disease is a consequence of vitamin deficiency.
Note - Meanwhile, in America a vaccination campaign was organised to stop the European Spanish Flu from coming to America. Large stocks of untested vaccines were produced and over priced to rip of gullible people who were scared to death by constant propaganda from the pharmaceutical industry and media.
Note - The vaccinations proved to be more dangerous than any germ and killed people in the thousands.
And then we have the DDT trucks spraying of children's play grounds in the 1940's to 1960's which led to a massive out break of 'polio'. This is an example of toxins causing disease. Can we trust the government to look after our interests? Answer - No way Jose!
Note - Polio was called the 'children's disease'. Yeah, sure thing, government authorities! Thanks for that very informative information. lol
How about calling it the DDT disease next time. lol
Viruses, and bacteria - have outbreaks that correlate with individual contact. STDs correlate with being in sexual contact with other people with the STD - never trust someone who says they caught herpes from not eating fruit.[3]
More disinformation from con.
Vitamins C – When it comes to preventing the herpes breakouts, vitamin C should be top in the list. Vitamin C can be easily found in numerous citrus fruits like kiwi, lemon & in orange. Vitamin C has been known to have the immune system boosting components that not only improve the immunity but also obliterate the virus of herpes. Plus vitamins C works like a potent antioxidant that protects cells from the oxidative damage caused by the free radicals. Consuming sufficient amount of antioxidants assists your body to fight numbers of well-being diseases even with the herpes sickness. Hence using vitamins C may substantially assist to tackle herpes illness.
Note - Never trust anyone who wears a white coat with a stethoscope dangling around their neck. Its a sure sign of a con-artist with no knowledge of how the human body really works.
That aside, that’s only one type of disease. Illnesses caused by viruses, such as smallpox are different.You have an out break source, and it spreads. It spreads around the village regardless of what water supplies are being used, and makes its way to other villages alongside people who travel.[1]
Con is talking about medieval villages which had no sanitation, proper water supply, refrigeration and were subject to weather conditions. Now, if there was a long drought, then dozens of connected villages would suffer the same food shortages. Thus, vitamin deficiency can apply to large areas or countries even.
Note - Volcanic activity was more common in the Dark ages. That's why they called it the Dark Ages because the sky was actually darker. Thus, less sunlight equals less food production which equals more disease. Logic explains everything. No need to use an irrational germ theory.
As I explained in my opening round and clarified. While scientists didn’t know what a virus would look like, they had the following information that would allow them to confirm that what they saw was the cause of a disease, if viruses were the cause of that disease
- They would be less than 0.1 microns in size
- They would be present in diseased serum and sap in large quantities.
- They would not be present in healthy serum and sap processed in identical ways.
- They would be present in multiple disparate samples, and look similar in each example.
Sorry con, I still can't see any reference material in your list. Thus, it still remains illogical nonsense.
“Its funny how people only catch the flu when they eat bad diets.”Pro asserts this with absolutely no evidence or justification.
Evidence and justification are a plenty -
In addition, hunter gatherer tribes in north/south America that did not have cities, or use agriculture - and have yet been decimated by infections when they have been brought over by settlers.[8]
Its not the germs that the settlers brought that killed the American natives. Its the fact that their hunting grounds and food sources were cut off by the expanding settlements and that the natives were displaced into arid regions which had no possibility of any food source. Also, the Indians were given processed and vitamin deficient white flour which exacerbated their health and vitamin deficiencies.
Note - South American did have agriculture and cities. Thus, your research and knowledge of this time period is very poor.
It is also untrue. We have evidence of the diseases in humans and other organisms way before cities came along [5][6]
Fossil records of disease are mostly based on preconceived ideas and not on facts. Fossils are very poor at recording small microorganisms. I wouldn't trust any palaeontologist who claims that they can see a virus in a fossil. Its just an absolute nonsense.
Animal viruses - prions?
I have studied this subject in detail for many years. There are no prions. There is only dangerous pesticide chemicals which attack the cows brain cells. (Mad Cow Disease.) Utter nonsense. Video by Mark Purdey.
Con
#6
Pros latest round doesn’t address the key facts about the existence of viruses.
I will re-iterate.
Proof of viruses that pro still has not offered evidence against.
1.) experiments show that a variety of organisms can be given particular “viral” diseases by applying material from infected organisms.
These experiments demonstrate that there is something in the organisms that cause the organism to get sick, which can be transferred.
Experiments of this kind keeps cells, cell cultures cultures, plants or animals being experiment on under identical conditions with the exception of the controlled exposure to infectious agent.[1][2]
This inherently rules out diet, as if the disease were diet based, there would not be correlation to the application of diseased material.
2.) The growth of viral cell cultures, and that successive transferral of disease from crops for viral cultures to the next, demonstrate that whatever is in these transferred media, it replicates.
This method conclusively proves that whatever is in the samples cannot be a toxin.[3]
3.) When comparing purified disease cells to health cells under a microscope - if viruses existed, one would expect to find objects of the expected size in the infected sample.
This is repeatedly the case. We have thousands of examples of images of viruses of all types via this process.[3][4][5][6][7]
We have even seen REAL TIMR images of viruses infecting cells:[3][8][9]
Hence, we know viruses exist, as we can see them, and can demonstrably show via steps (1) and (2) that these objects are what is causing the infection.
These 3 points demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that viruses exist.
This is literally an open and shut case: we know viruses can and do exist as we have seen them.
Pseudoscience explanations
Voters should pay close attention to pros tactics here.
I have provided Evidence and justification to why viruses exist. Rather than providing evidence, arguments and data that prove or justify pros burden that viruses can’t/don’t exist. Pro is merely producing unevidenced and unsupported counter explanations.
Such arguments should be rejected out of hand as wholly unwarranted.
For example: it is possible for someone to produce detailed arguments as to why the sun exists, only for an opponent to simply say “the sun is actually a bright satellite, and the government has faked all the photographs”.
Being able to partially explain a fact in some alternative paradigm doesn’t make that paradigm true; and cases where pro simply counters evidence with a forceful counter explanation should not be given the same weight as the detailed evidences provided thus far in support of viruses.
Tobacco Mosaic Virus caused by Toxins
In Round 2, pro argued vehemently this disease was caused by nutrient deficiencies. Pro now changes his story and argues its caused by toxins
Point (1) above proves it cannot be nutrient related and point (2) demonstrates it cannot be toxin based - the latter because taking a tiny sap sample and introducing it into a new plant should mean the toxin is diluted, and if done over and over again as pee cell cultures - should end up being non existent.
Toxins are often not destroyed by boiling, and are normally easy to chemically detect in the soil.[10][11]
While pro has a superficial explanation for the illness in the plant being transferred, pro ignores the key evidence that refutes his position: illness remains devastating on each transferral[12] nor offers no evidence or experiment that attempts to show the illness is toxin based.
All faked by pharmaceutical companies
While I am sure both governments and biotechnology companies are unethical: this does not mean that every pharmaceutical company, government, virologist, microbiologist, medical practitioner, clinical dietician, epidemiologist and health professional in the entire world for the last 100 - 200 years have been repeatedly and consistently upholding a major lie to the detriment of humanity.
Pro offers no actual evidence of such a global conspiracy, only some examples of governments being unethical.
Diet causes herpes and Spanish flu
Pro asserts - without any evidence at all - that the outbreak of Spanish flu, that spread around the world as an infectious disease and primarily killed health individuals were down to poor diet. It should be rejected as unsupported.
In all examples so far, pro is incredibly superficial both in his explanation, and in his descriptions of the facts he’s explaining. In this case, pro paints over all the facts and data that disagrees with him, and simply asserts (without evidence), that the whole entire world Went through a period of vitamin C deficiency.
Pros claims are incoherent. During world war 1 and world war 2 [13]there were food shortages, as there was during the Great Depression[14], as there have been numerous times in the Soviet Union[15], and in Africa.[16]
However - only one of major world wide flu pandemic outbreaks of the 20th century coincided with major periods of food instability[17], and even then, in each case the food shortage was relatively local.
Pros explanation, are superficial, and wholly lacking.
Volcanic activity and poor sanitation.
Pro again, doesn’t explain the evidence; and relies on superficial explanations of highly superficially interpreted data.
Sanitation in the Middle and dark Ages was very poor, it was poor everywhere.
The time when Black Death hit a given location in Europe was dependent on time, and location - it spread geographically over time - rather than simply popping up when sanitation was bad. [18] This is consistent with germ theory - not pros position.
Again, pros explanation is unevidenced, and obviously incorrect, and should be rejected.
Paleo dieters don’t get sick/vitamin C for herpes.
None of pros sources offer any evidence that claim
Pros first source is simply a link to the paleo diet. His second and third link confirms viruses exist:
2.) “you’re far less likely to be a good host (or hostess) to many of the bacteria, viruses and yeasts”[19]
3.) “The list below contains some of nature’s most powerful antivirals, antibacterials, and immune boosters to quickly prevent and/or knock out that virus.”[20]
Pros also sources for herpes a source (a quora page, so questionable), which pro cherry picks and selectively quotes, the source also says:[21]
“Vitamin C has been known to have the immune system boosting components that not only improve the immunity but also obliterate the virus of herpes.”
Pros own source again discredits his argument. Without having having to get into the questionable scientific claims.
Animal viruses and diseases
I offered evidence of diseases and illnesses in animals, and fossil evidence of disease predating agriculture and cities.
Pro simply dismisses this out of hand without evidence, asserting that prions don’t exist.
Hunter Gatherer Tribes
Evidence of Smallpox wiping out hunter gather tribes (which still exist), was provided in the previous round.
Pro asserts without any evidence at all, that the cause of smallpox was not the viruses that has been scientifically confirmed to be the cause, but changes in diet.
Pros argument should be rejected as unsupported.
Pro has no explanation for the chronological and geographic spreading of smallpox that typifies transmissible outbreaks.[22]
Conclusion:
In the previous round, I answered numerous questions Pro posed, pro ignores the majority of these responses.
In addition, pro is reliant on superficial explanations, and is thus far unable to provide any detailed experiment or support for his position.
Moreover pro has inherent burden of proof to demonstrate his contention that viruses can’t exist. He has not provided ANY argument whatsoever to support this position.
This debate is an open and shut vote for con.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology
[2] http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/pages/tmv.aspx
[3]https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-microbiology/chapter/culturing-viruses/
[4] http://www.scopem.ethz.ch/gallery/02.html
[5] https://www.verywellhealth.com/hiv-microscopy-in-pictures-48651
[6] https://microscopy-analysis.com/editorials/editorial-listings/clearest-ever-image-ebola-virus-protein
[7]http://blogs.nature.com/houseofwisdom/2015/07/hepatitis-c-training-for-journalists.html
[8] https://m.phys.org/news/2016-03-viruses-piggyback-host-microbes-success.html
[9] https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/14440817981
[10] https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-rapid-toxic-compounds.html
[11]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/grassy-narrows-toxic-tap-water-not-fixed-by-boiling-expert-says-1.3211220
[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048519/?page=1
[13] https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWrationing.htm
[14] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3434
[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921–22
[16] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famines_in_Africa
[17] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic
[18] https://www.ancient.eu/image/8954/spread-of-the-black-death/
[19] https://www.paleoista.com/nutritional-approach/eat-paleo-dont-get-sick/
[20] https://blog.paleohacks.com/cold-and-flu-remedies/#
[21] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-vitamins-and-herpes
[22] https://bestamericanhistory.wordpress.com/tag/smallpox/
I will re-iterate.
Proof of viruses that pro still has not offered evidence against.
1.) experiments show that a variety of organisms can be given particular “viral” diseases by applying material from infected organisms.
These experiments demonstrate that there is something in the organisms that cause the organism to get sick, which can be transferred.
Experiments of this kind keeps cells, cell cultures cultures, plants or animals being experiment on under identical conditions with the exception of the controlled exposure to infectious agent.[1][2]
This inherently rules out diet, as if the disease were diet based, there would not be correlation to the application of diseased material.
2.) The growth of viral cell cultures, and that successive transferral of disease from crops for viral cultures to the next, demonstrate that whatever is in these transferred media, it replicates.
This method conclusively proves that whatever is in the samples cannot be a toxin.[3]
3.) When comparing purified disease cells to health cells under a microscope - if viruses existed, one would expect to find objects of the expected size in the infected sample.
This is repeatedly the case. We have thousands of examples of images of viruses of all types via this process.[3][4][5][6][7]
We have even seen REAL TIMR images of viruses infecting cells:[3][8][9]
Hence, we know viruses exist, as we can see them, and can demonstrably show via steps (1) and (2) that these objects are what is causing the infection.
These 3 points demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that viruses exist.
This is literally an open and shut case: we know viruses can and do exist as we have seen them.
Pseudoscience explanations
Voters should pay close attention to pros tactics here.
I have provided Evidence and justification to why viruses exist. Rather than providing evidence, arguments and data that prove or justify pros burden that viruses can’t/don’t exist. Pro is merely producing unevidenced and unsupported counter explanations.
Such arguments should be rejected out of hand as wholly unwarranted.
For example: it is possible for someone to produce detailed arguments as to why the sun exists, only for an opponent to simply say “the sun is actually a bright satellite, and the government has faked all the photographs”.
Being able to partially explain a fact in some alternative paradigm doesn’t make that paradigm true; and cases where pro simply counters evidence with a forceful counter explanation should not be given the same weight as the detailed evidences provided thus far in support of viruses.
Tobacco Mosaic Virus caused by Toxins
In Round 2, pro argued vehemently this disease was caused by nutrient deficiencies. Pro now changes his story and argues its caused by toxins
Point (1) above proves it cannot be nutrient related and point (2) demonstrates it cannot be toxin based - the latter because taking a tiny sap sample and introducing it into a new plant should mean the toxin is diluted, and if done over and over again as pee cell cultures - should end up being non existent.
Toxins are often not destroyed by boiling, and are normally easy to chemically detect in the soil.[10][11]
While pro has a superficial explanation for the illness in the plant being transferred, pro ignores the key evidence that refutes his position: illness remains devastating on each transferral[12] nor offers no evidence or experiment that attempts to show the illness is toxin based.
All faked by pharmaceutical companies
While I am sure both governments and biotechnology companies are unethical: this does not mean that every pharmaceutical company, government, virologist, microbiologist, medical practitioner, clinical dietician, epidemiologist and health professional in the entire world for the last 100 - 200 years have been repeatedly and consistently upholding a major lie to the detriment of humanity.
Pro offers no actual evidence of such a global conspiracy, only some examples of governments being unethical.
Diet causes herpes and Spanish flu
Pro asserts - without any evidence at all - that the outbreak of Spanish flu, that spread around the world as an infectious disease and primarily killed health individuals were down to poor diet. It should be rejected as unsupported.
In all examples so far, pro is incredibly superficial both in his explanation, and in his descriptions of the facts he’s explaining. In this case, pro paints over all the facts and data that disagrees with him, and simply asserts (without evidence), that the whole entire world Went through a period of vitamin C deficiency.
Pros claims are incoherent. During world war 1 and world war 2 [13]there were food shortages, as there was during the Great Depression[14], as there have been numerous times in the Soviet Union[15], and in Africa.[16]
However - only one of major world wide flu pandemic outbreaks of the 20th century coincided with major periods of food instability[17], and even then, in each case the food shortage was relatively local.
Pros explanation, are superficial, and wholly lacking.
Volcanic activity and poor sanitation.
Pro again, doesn’t explain the evidence; and relies on superficial explanations of highly superficially interpreted data.
Sanitation in the Middle and dark Ages was very poor, it was poor everywhere.
The time when Black Death hit a given location in Europe was dependent on time, and location - it spread geographically over time - rather than simply popping up when sanitation was bad. [18] This is consistent with germ theory - not pros position.
Again, pros explanation is unevidenced, and obviously incorrect, and should be rejected.
Paleo dieters don’t get sick/vitamin C for herpes.
None of pros sources offer any evidence that claim
Pros first source is simply a link to the paleo diet. His second and third link confirms viruses exist:
2.) “you’re far less likely to be a good host (or hostess) to many of the bacteria, viruses and yeasts”[19]
3.) “The list below contains some of nature’s most powerful antivirals, antibacterials, and immune boosters to quickly prevent and/or knock out that virus.”[20]
Pros also sources for herpes a source (a quora page, so questionable), which pro cherry picks and selectively quotes, the source also says:[21]
“Vitamin C has been known to have the immune system boosting components that not only improve the immunity but also obliterate the virus of herpes.”
Pros own source again discredits his argument. Without having having to get into the questionable scientific claims.
Animal viruses and diseases
I offered evidence of diseases and illnesses in animals, and fossil evidence of disease predating agriculture and cities.
Pro simply dismisses this out of hand without evidence, asserting that prions don’t exist.
Hunter Gatherer Tribes
Evidence of Smallpox wiping out hunter gather tribes (which still exist), was provided in the previous round.
Pro asserts without any evidence at all, that the cause of smallpox was not the viruses that has been scientifically confirmed to be the cause, but changes in diet.
Pros argument should be rejected as unsupported.
Pro has no explanation for the chronological and geographic spreading of smallpox that typifies transmissible outbreaks.[22]
Conclusion:
In the previous round, I answered numerous questions Pro posed, pro ignores the majority of these responses.
In addition, pro is reliant on superficial explanations, and is thus far unable to provide any detailed experiment or support for his position.
Moreover pro has inherent burden of proof to demonstrate his contention that viruses can’t exist. He has not provided ANY argument whatsoever to support this position.
This debate is an open and shut vote for con.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_virology
[2] http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/pages/tmv.aspx
[3]https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-microbiology/chapter/culturing-viruses/
[4] http://www.scopem.ethz.ch/gallery/02.html
[5] https://www.verywellhealth.com/hiv-microscopy-in-pictures-48651
[6] https://microscopy-analysis.com/editorials/editorial-listings/clearest-ever-image-ebola-virus-protein
[7]http://blogs.nature.com/houseofwisdom/2015/07/hepatitis-c-training-for-journalists.html
[8] https://m.phys.org/news/2016-03-viruses-piggyback-host-microbes-success.html
[9] https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/14440817981
[10] https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-rapid-toxic-compounds.html
[11]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/grassy-narrows-toxic-tap-water-not-fixed-by-boiling-expert-says-1.3211220
[12] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048519/?page=1
[13] https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWrationing.htm
[14] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3434
[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921–22
[16] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famines_in_Africa
[17] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic
[18] https://www.ancient.eu/image/8954/spread-of-the-black-death/
[19] https://www.paleoista.com/nutritional-approach/eat-paleo-dont-get-sick/
[20] https://blog.paleohacks.com/cold-and-flu-remedies/#
[21] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-between-vitamins-and-herpes
[22] https://bestamericanhistory.wordpress.com/tag/smallpox/
Round 4
Pro
#7
Con is getting more and more assertive as the debate progresses and is now becoming annoyingly dictatorial. Declaring that he was won the debate! ........and with very flimsy and almost laughable lack of information and zero logic. Not to mention his dozens of references which he probably hasn't read or checked to see if the link works or not. Yes, folks! That's what con did in our last debate. He gave me several faulty links which he obviously didn't bother to read himself.
Note - If you are defending an organisation that uses deception and deceit to make money, then, I guess the only way the defend such an organisation is by using slight of hand and trickery yourself. lol
Now, in order to uncover this trickery we need to look closely at some of these links to see what nonsense and trickery we can find. Oh yeah, Con is back on the bacteriophages again with more photos and graphics.
Now according to virus definition - a virus has no nervous system or brain. Yet, these bacteriophages appear to be very complex things indeed. They look about as complex as a NASA moon lander with several independent movements.
1. They appear to land onto a cell feet first. Now, to achieve this they would need a pretty good gyroscope, many small velocity jets to stabilise the craft, A computer system radar to locate the cell body and orientate the craft. Then, the landing legs would have to have a nervous system to react and grab the target abject or cell because there is no gravity to hold the virus to the cell. Then the legs bend on contact with the cell. (This would require a nervous system with complex joints and muscles.) Then, the virus (space craft) twists downwards to inject the virus medium into the cell. Thus, the virus needs to have several different compartments with doors and levers. Wow! Amazing!
This is truly amazing stuff for an entity with no brains, muscles, eyes, ears, walls, digestive system, nervous system, legs, arms, nose or hearing.
Thus, these bacteriophages are just illogical nonsense which was designed to trick the average 5 year old. Any person older than 5 would see through this nonsense and see that they have been fooled. But it looks like they have completely fooled Con. lol
Note - The images are most likely images of fungus which can most commonly attack T4 cells. Fungus use fibres which grow out of the spore body to infect a dead cell.
HIV viral load testing
Depending on which test you use. The results of the viral load test vary greatly while using the same blood sample. Thus, the extraction of virus material and identifying it as such is a bogus procedure. You could puree a tomato, then centrifuge the liquid and get exactly the same HIV positive results. Thus, no controls are ever used in these so called 'tests'.
For example: it is possible for someone to produce detailed arguments as to why the sun exists, only for an opponent to simply say “the sun is actually a bright satellite, and the government has faked all the photographs”.
Yes, con, I have seen all your detailed arguments (above) and they are all bogus nonsense based on false science and deception. Its just a money making scam. The truth is much simpler. That is, there is only one disease which is vitamin deficiency.
While pro has a superficial explanation for the illness in the plant being transferred, pro ignores the key evidence that refutes his position: illness remains devastating on each transferral[12] nor offers no evidence or experiment that attempts to show the illness is toxin based.In Round 2, pro argued vehemently this disease was caused by nutrient deficiencies. Pro now changes his story and argues its caused by toxins
Sorry con, but plants don't get illnesses, only humans get illnesses. lol Plants get disease! Jokes aside. I never stated that the Mosaic tobacco virus was a toxin based disease. Thus, con is getting so confused and more desperate as time goes on, so now he has to find errors that don't even exist. Please quote errors first next time before shooting your mouth off.
While I am sure both governments and biotechnology companies are unethical: this does not mean that every pharmaceutical company, government, virologist, microbiologist, medical practitioner, clinical dietician, epidemiologist and health professional in the entire world for the last 100 - 200 years have been repeatedly and consistently upholding a major lie to the detriment of humanity.
The entire pharmaceutical and medical industry is built on the foundation stones of 'germ theory'. Thus, if germ theory is totally wrong, then that makes all of the above totally wrong also. That's true con. You are learning. It has been to the detriment of humanity. Ask Wade Frazier.
Pro asserts - without any evidence at all - that the outbreak of Spanish flu, that spread around the world as an infectious disease and primarily killed health individuals were down to poor diet. It should be rejected as unsupported.
I never stated that the "Spanish Flu killed any healthy individuals". Thus, con is adding further nonsense to an already ridiculous argument. The only healthy individuals who died during that period were those who were unfortunate enough to be fooled by the vaccination program in America which killed thousands of people with untested vaccines.
In all examples so far, pro is incredibly superficial both in his explanation, and in his descriptions of the facts he’s explaining. In this case, pro paints over all the facts and data that disagrees with him, and simply asserts (without evidence), that the whole entire world Went through a period of vitamin C deficiency.
As we can see that scurvy has been prevalent throughout human history is is not a trivial matter.
The time when Black Death hit a given location in Europe was dependent on time, and location - it spread geographically over time - rather than simply popping up when sanitation was bad. [18] This is consistent with germ theory - not pros position.
The Black Death occurred as a wave over Europe. It followed the Volcanic ash cloud which caused crop failure and starvation.
Paleo dieters don’t get sick/vitamin C for herpes.None of pros sources offer any evidence that claim
The medical system is unlikely to recommend the paleo diet for any illness because it would undermine their ability to sell expensive drugs, medications and surgery solutions which are far more profitable than is giving dietary advice. Thus, there is a general consensus of silence among all medical professionals on this issue. But I am sure there are many medical professionals that are on a Paleo diet and don't tell their patients about it.
Animal viruses and diseasesI offered evidence of diseases and illnesses in animals, and fossil evidence of disease predating agriculture and cities.Pro simply dismisses this out of hand without evidence, asserting that prions don’t exist.
I gave con a video by Mark Purdey who is a biologist and has written a book about Mad Cow Disease. Did con see the video. Answer - NO HE DIDN'T
Thus, con continues his deceitfulness and double standards.
Conclusions
Con has used trickery, deceitfulness and fraudulence as his main weapons to defend his case. A 5 year old could easily see through his thinly veiled lies and deceit.
He has used dozens of references as a means over loading his opponent in the vain hope that I will not have enough time to read all his references. This must bore the voters to death having to read several hours of references. Con has no respect for the voters time and intelligence. Thus, I wouldn't vote for somebody who bores and disrespects voters to this degree.
Con
#8
Experimental evidence.
In round 1,2 and 3; I explained and outlined the experimental evidence that prove viruses exist, and provided multiple images of viruses.
These explanations provide detailed reasons why diet and toxins can be ruled out as causes for these illnesses.
Pro has repeatedly ignored these key arguments, and has simply asserted that these detailed experiments and examples can simply be explained by toxins and diet but cannot explain the details of how.
Visual evidence
In the first round I explained we knew viruses existed, as we had taken images of them. In the last round I provided half a dozen different images of viruses: including viruses physically infecting a cell, viruses attached to and attacking a cell.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Pros only response was to simply dismiss these images as “mould”, pro offers no explanation, or justification as to why he feels these images are mould, and why every virologist so far has been mistake.
Mold is a cellular organism and much larger than viruses and could not possibly confused.[8]
As pro has not offered any rational or plausible disproof of the multiple images I presented - it is clear that he is unable to contest viruses have been observed and has lost this debate.
Pros argument from incredulity
Pro seems personally incredulous about the possibility of Bacteriophages existing.
Despite his incredulity, I presented images not just of such phages existing, but them attacking cells.[1]
No matter how incredulous pro maybe about the existence of bacteriophages - this does not mean they do not exist, especially when considering that visual confirmed evidence has been presented of them.
Pros tactics:
I invite readers to review Pros tactics in this debate, as they are relevant to your vote. Pros tactic been to make a series of unsubstantiated and unwarranted claims without evidence or any justification as rebuttals to clearly cited evidence to support the existence of viruses.
Where pro has used this tactic, pros argument should be rejected summarily: pro has to provide a burden of proof, he cannot simply throw out absurd claims and the demand his opponent to refute them one by one - he must justify these claims.
For the first few rounds, I have been rebutting each one of pros unsupported claims, only for him to mostly ignore the response, and to make another.
At this point, further detailed responses to yet more of pros assertions serves only to make it impossible to read the debate. Instead I will simply list the points pro makes, and the key detail pro omits that renders his point unwarranted.
Examples of pros assertions:
Pro has throughout this debate asserted that the evidence of viruses is explained by toxins, by poor diet, by mould, by poor sanitation, by dead animals in the water supply, by volcanic ash, by food shortages, and by lack of vitamin c, and multiple other explanations in a variety of other examples.
Pro has not, for example, been able to provide any medical evidence that vitamin C deficiency can cause Spanish flu like symptoms, and kill you within a single week of onset, nor that it can bring about smallpox like pustules with a significant mortality rate.
Pro has not been able to provide any medical evidence or explanation as to why smallpox, flu, herpes, and scurvy all have wildly different symptoms, wildly
different patterns of out breaks, wildly different mortality rates and wildly different onset times - despite pros claims that they are all the same vitamin c deficiency.
Pro blamed the Tobacco Mosaic Disease on nutrients:
“the primary cause of the problem was soil nutrient depletion.”
Then he changes his mind and claims:
“If you transmit diseased fluid unnaturally from one plant to another plant, then, you are infecting the new plant with the toxins of the diseased plant”
Then claims he didn’t.
“I never stated that the Mosaic tobacco virus was a toxin based disease”
... but Pro has not offered any evidence of what specific toxin causes this disease, how he can demonstrate this diseased is caused by nutrient depletion or toxins , where that toxin comes from (chemically speaking), nor has he done the same for any other viral disease, nor presented any explanation of how transmission can go on indefinitely.
Pro has not offered any evidence or justification as to why nutrient deficiency explains how the illnesses appears to be transmissible from diseased plant to healthy plant. Nor hasn’t he offered any evidence of justification as to why nutrient deficiency explains how some illnesses appear to be the transmissible in humans or animals.
Pro has not offered any medical evidence that vitamin deficiencies, poor sanitation, or volcanic ash can produce illnesses that appear like plague or smallpox, or any number of disease outbreaks.
Pro has not offered any justification of why viruses in images presented could be mould.
Pro claims without any evidence and without any justification that only those vaccinated died of Spanish flu in North America.
In addition, evidence was presented about out breakouts and patterns, and how these follow chronologically and geographically, these out break patterns match the idea of germ theory, illnesses travel with humans, so spread out from point sources from a single location
: pro has yet to provide any justification to explain how diet and toxins can spread over large geographical areas from single point sources over time, nor explain the evidence.
Pro claims that HIV viral load tests give different answers. He did not provide any explanation of why this proves viruses do not exist.
Pro claims without any justification that plants don’t get illnesses. They do.[9]
Peo claims without any evidence that people on the paleodiet do not get ill - despite using multiple sources that imply that they do indeed get sick from viruses.
In fact, as stated, pros tactic here is just to throw out multiple wild assertions and unsupported conjecture, and then demand that con refutes each one.
Clearly this is both intellectually dishonest, a blatant attempt at Gish-Galloping the debate, and clearly falls far short of anything resembling his burden of proof.
For pro to win this debate, pros burden is to BOTH, show that viral bases explanations are invalid, and can be ruled out as proving viruses exist - AND to provide arguments to show that such organisms are impossible.
Pro has offered no meaningful constructive argument on either point, and so voters must vote for con.
Sources:
Round 5
Pro
#9
Experimental evidence.In round 1,2 and 3; I explained and outlined the experimental evidence that prove viruses exist, and provided multiple images of viruses.These explanations provide detailed reasons why diet and toxins can be ruled out as causes for these illnesses.Pro has repeatedly ignored these key arguments, and has simply asserted that these detailed experiments and examples can simply be explained by toxins and diet but cannot explain the details of how.
I did explain many times how diet and toxins cause disease. Con just ignored the evidence as if it doesn't exist. (round 2 reply below)
I also included many references to leaky gut syndrome websites, books and videos. None of which con has bothered to read or watch. This is the typically childish and tiresome debating that con uses all the time, its called lazy forget everything debating. Note - Con doesn't even read his own references let alone any reference of mine.
Sorry, con, but disease only started occurring when humans began to live in towns and grow agricultural crops. Disease is a result of redirecting nature into purposes that it was never meant for. Recent research has shown that agricultural products are unsuitable to the human digestive system and cause gut bacteria to leak into the blood stream.
Thus, con just makes stuff up to suit himself.
Visual evidenceIn the first round I explained we knew viruses existed, as we had taken images of them. In the last round I provided half a dozen different images of viruses: including viruses physically infecting a cell, viruses attached to and attacking a cell.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]Pros only response was to simply dismiss these images as “mould”, pro offers no explanation, or justification as to why he feels these images are mould, and why every virologist so far has been mistake.Mold is a cellular organism and much larger than viruses and could not possibly confused.[8]As pro has not offered any rational or plausible disproof of the multiple images I presented - it is clear that he is unable to contest viruses have been observed and has lost this debate.
The images that con has presented are not of viruses because I have worked in an electron microscope lab and know that it is physically impossible to find or to photograph a virus. All the images are frauds. The photographs are probably of hormones emerging from a CD4 cell. CD4 cells produce hormones which could be mistaken for viruses if you are a complete idiot. There are some photos of coral bacterial life forms posing as viruses. (no dimensions given) . A photograph of a some cell debris. Finally, we have a computer image of a virus which is asymmetrical. Thus, it could never reproduce itself. lol
Note - This is a debate site. Its not all about visual evidence. You have to justify your images with a logical sequence of events. Con hasn't even got close to doing this.
Visual evidence has many criteria which have to be addressed.
1.The method that was used to obtain the sample.
2. A list of equipment that was used.
3. A list a procedures taken to properly prepare the specimen.
4. The origin of the sample specimen.
5. List of chemicals used in preserving the specimen.
6. The name of the laboratory or institution that where the research took place.
7. The time and date when the research was undertaken.
8. An explanation of how the virus was identified and classified.
9. The names of the research workers involved in the research.
10. Names of any sponsors who supplied the research facilities.
11. The dimensions of the specimen.
Now, when you have supplied all this information you may have some viable evidence.
Pros argument from incredulityPro seems personally incredulous about the possibility of Bacteriophages existing.Despite his incredulity, I presented images not just of such phages existing, but them attacking cells.[1]No matter how incredulous pro maybe about the existence of bacteriophages - this does not mean they do not exist, especially when considering that visual confirmed evidence has been presented of them.
Con avoids arguing on the grounds of logic. He just keeps saying "I have images". So what! The images are all frauds. Logic dictates that these computer generated images are not real and couldn't exist in a real world. They are just science fiction fantasy robots. A virus is dead until it enters the cell con. Thus, logic says that it can't move any of its parts until it gets inside and comes to life. Thus, because the bacteriophages have to move through turbulent flowing blood they would never have any directional guidance to find a cell to infect. They have no senses to detect a cell. They have no steering or propulsion system. Thus, they can't land feet first on to a cell. Thus, you need to find a more logical solution which would be that they are just mould spores which have attached to a dead cell in culture. Note- Electron microscopes don't do fluid based photographs. Thus, you can't get a photo of a virus entering a cell because its physically impossible to photograph on an electron microscope.
Pro has not been able to provide any medical evidence or explanation as to why smallpox, flu, herpes, and scurvy all have wildly different symptoms, wildly
Definition or symptoms of scurvy.
The main physical symptom of scurvy is the disintegration of the body. The skin begins to break. It starts with little blood blisters and develops into full-scale ulcers. The gums begin to putrefy and become black. Bones that had previously broken rebreak. Old wounds open up.
Definition or symptoms of small pox
- sudden onset of high fever which may be recurrent.
- widespread skin rash – flat spots which change into raised bumps then firm fluid filled blisters which then scab (see image)
- severe headache.
- backache.
- abdominal pain.
- vomiting.
- diarrhoea.
Disease is just the break down of body functions due to vitamin deficiency. The particular vitamin deficiency determines the particular symptoms. We can plainly see that there are more similarities between small pox, then there are differences. I am sure that people who have scurvy do a lot of vomiting, have abdominal pain and get headaches too. Note - Its the doctors who report the illnesses that create the differences and its not the disease which has the differences. Note - Doctors like to play the germ theory game of creating differences. That's because all medical practise is essentially a fraud on humanity.
Pro blamed the Tobacco Mosaic Disease on nutrients:
“the primary cause of the problem was soil nutrient depletion.”
Then he changes his mind and claims:
“If you transmit diseased fluid unnaturally from one plant to another plant, then, you are infecting the new plant with the toxins of the diseased plant”
Then claims he didn’t.
“I never stated that the Mosaic tobacco virus was a toxin based disease”
The tobacco industry is almost as bad as the narcotics industry. Its about making dangerous drugs which both excite and kill people. The morality of the tobacco growers is pretty low and they will do almost anything to make an extra buck. Thus, they will add dangerous prohibited chemicals to the plant and soil to make the plant grow bigger and faster. This will compromise the quality of the plant and diseases will result. Thus, this is essentially a chemical poisoning and vitamin deficiency problem.
Pro has not offered any evidence or justification as to why nutrient deficiency explains how the illnesses appears to be transmissible from diseased plant to healthy plant. Nor hasn’t he offered any evidence of justification as to why nutrient deficiency explains how some illnesses appear to be the transmissible in humans or animals.
Its not up to me to provide evidence for transmissible diseases con. That's your side of the argument. That's your responsibility. My statement is that "there are no transmissible diseases."
I have never seen a transmissible disease con. Have you? I have never got a transmissible con. Have you?
I have a garden which became diseased. I went to the shop to get advice. They sold me some fungicide to kill said "disease". It didn't have any effect. So I added some fertilizer to the ground and the disease disappeared soon after. Thus, germ theory is just a money making scam.
Pro claims without any evidence and without any justification that only those vaccinated died of Spanish flu in North America.
I gave con the reference twice and he still didn't read it. Its just plain tiresome debating this person. Here it is for the third time now. Read it dumb arse!
In addition, evidence was presented about out breakouts and patterns, and how these follow chronologically and geographically, these out break patterns match the idea of germ theory, illnesses travel with humans, so spread out from point sources from a single location: pro has yet to provide any justification to explain how diet and toxins can spread over large geographical areas from single point sources over time, nor explain the evidence.
I did explain con. You just forgot it . That's all. Copy and pasted from round 3. (below)
Con is talking about medieval villages which had no sanitation, proper water supply, refrigeration and were subject to weather conditions. Now, if there was a long drought, then dozens of connected villages would suffer the same food shortages. Thus, vitamin deficiency can apply to large areas or countries even.Note - Volcanic activity was more common in the Dark ages. That's why they called it the Dark Ages because the sky was actually darker. Thus, less sunlight equals less food production which equals more disease. Logic explains everything. No need to use an irrational germ theory.
Pro claims that HIV viral load tests give different answers. He did not provide any explanation of why this proves viruses do not exist.
If they can't measure the quantity of the viruses correctly, then, that means they don't really know what they are measuring. Its called logic con. But don't worry con, you haven't got any of that preciously rare stuff in your small little head. lol
Pro claims without any justification that plants don’t get illnesses. They do.[9]
I was referring to language usage. Illness has an emotional context which plants don't have. lol Unless you are a Greeny. Then, plants have emotions too. lol
Peo claims without any evidence that people on the paleodiet do not get ill - despite using multiple sources that imply that they do indeed get sick from viruses.
Just because a website says something. It doesn't automatically mean that I agree with everything on that particular site. I was only using the site for one particular piece of information. If you found some additional information on the site just keep it to yourself next time and don't be so rude to imply that I agree with it.
Summary
Con is just a rudderless boat out in the middle of the big ocean and is being blown around by the winds of the establishment. He has no control over his destiny and will succumb to the ravages of germ theory at a very young age.
A vote for con will be a vote in support of a merciless and profiteering drug and medical cartels which profit from people's ignorance and fear of death and disease.
Note - Con did not respond to my book reference by Wade Frazier - The Medical Racket
and video by Mark Purdey - Mad Cow Disease.
Thus, con is still mostly in the dark about these issues and hasn't even begun to learn the truth of the matter.
Con
#10
I’m going to summarize the key arguments and positions here, before trying to deal with pros additional claims.
I appreciate this debate has been made impossible to follow by anyone, and difficult to vote on due to pros repeated meandering and accusatory style.
1.) Support for viral diseases.
In rounds 1-4 I have made the consistent argument that experiments and evidence shows:
1.) That diseases can be transmitted through samples taken from one organism to another. Indicating that some diseases are transmissible. This rules out diet.
2.) That these diseases can be used to infect given cells repeatedly with no limit.
This rules out toxins.
3.) That boiling water eradicated the disease. Ruling out most toxins.
4.) That outbreak patterns for toxins (single point out breaks), diet (broad statistical outbreak), and germs (chronological and geographic based on infection method) are all different, and that diet and toxins cannot explain these outbreak patterns.
5.) We have multiple visual examples of viruses.
These 5 points take together conclusively prove viruses exist. We know viruses exist because we have seen them!
These evidences and experiments were detailed and explained in detail.
Pros responses to these core claims has been as follows:
1.) Pro repeatedly ignores the detail that rules out diet and toxin, and simply claims the disease is caused by diet and toxins - with no detailed explanation of how he knows this.
2.) Pro completely ignores this point in its entirety.
3.) Pro completely ignores this point in its entirety.
4.) Pro simply asserts all outbreak patterns - no matter how different or complex - simply follow volcanic ash, or illness. Pro offers no evidence or justification for this at all - it should be rejected
5.) Pro offers multiple excuses as to why the clear images of viruses are not viruses. He claims the pictures are mould or hormones or faked or part of a conspiracy. Pro doesn’t provide any explanation of how he drew these conclusions - he simply asserts it as so. Pro rounds out his assertions by attempting to cast doubt on the credibility of images created by scientific organizations around the world.
If pro has nothing more than these wild conspiracy theories and accusations without evidence to claim these pictures are not of viruses - then voters must assume these images are of viruses.
As argued: pro is demanding that voters accept that all images of viruses are mistaken, and the entire medical community is part of a world wide conspiracy and cover up - and offers no substantiating evidence of any kind to prove it.
No: pro clearly hasn’t met his burden of proof - and thus it must be concluded viruses exist.
2.) Failure of Toxins/Diet - illnesses
Throughout this debate, pro has vociferously and repeatedly claimed that all diseases are caused by toxins and diet.
As already outlined, pro has repeatedly failed to explain major issues with his explanation.
I have also wholly refuted the majority of his claims here too.
As I have pointed out in previous rounds, pro is claiming that diseases that have identical causes produce wildly different symptoms, have massive different mortality rates, some have been wholly eradicated and all have different onset time.
The only response I can see where pro has even bothered to reply to this devastating problem with his claims, is in the last round: where pro argues that two completely different lists of symptoms are really the same - whilst ignoring all other problems with the claim.
Ulcers are not fluid filled blisters. Opening wounds and breaking bones are not scabbing and muscle soreness. One has fever, and headache, the other has blackening and bleeding gums.
Of course, there are always some similarities between any two individual illnesses, but pros contemptuous refusal to acknowledge inconvenient information here is damning for his position.
3.) Failure of Toxin/diet - no evidence/explanatory power
Pros claims that all viral illnesses are caused by diet and toxins is made without any objective evidence.
While we are aware that bad diet will harm your health and immune system: pros claims go way beyond that, in asserting a causal relationship.
Pro can link no source, no experiment, nor even anecdotal citation that provides causal evidence of his claims.
As also shown pro does not go into any detail as to how and why these illnesses even explain the evidence.
Because of this massive lack of actual evidence - and no attempt to explain evidence in any detail, pro is essentially asking voters to trust him that his claims are true.
This must be rejected.
4.) Throwing stuff out to see what sticks
Pros claim here has been to throw out repeated and multiple claims, without any cohesive attempt to argue his points:
He originally through out a series of clearly nonsensical questions. He claimed TMD was caused by diet then by toxins, then he said he hadn’t changed his mind, then when quoted changes the subject on the tobacco industry.
As pointed out in the previous round: pro has blamed volcanic ash, poor sanitation, vaccination programs, food shortages, food in wells in different amounts for different infections of different kinds.
Pro has ignored multiple arguments pointing out how none of these aspects appear explain the actual evidence - at which point has ignored each objection in turn.
Pro claimed the Spanish flu was caused by vaccines - and posts an obviously unscientific pseudoscience site to support it. He doesn’t bother to explain or justify his claim - simply demands that I refute his entire link - multiple times.
Pros citation simply says 7 people died after taking the vaccination, and claimed that men fell ill from Hepatitis. This citations contains no causal evidence, or justification or explanation of why the claim vaccines caused Spanish flu is valid.
Pros tactic here to simply throw out a claim and demand I refute it without providing any compelling reason to believe it in the first place leads me to this:
4.) Conduct - Gish Gallup
Pro has raised about 30 individual claims, each claim is based on either no evidence or argument or a minimal amount of evidence and argument - which he then demands a refutation.
Pro has raises so many individual points, and drops so many existing refutations, that I cannot reasonable be expected to provide detailed refutations of all points - especially considering my - as I just showed - he does not himself warrant his own claims.
Pro asserts that prions don’t exist (which doesn’t even negate the resolution), then demands I watch a 36 minute video without bothering to even explain his own reasoning, or summarizing the evidence.
He asserts that viral load tests give different answers - he provides no summary no explanation, no context the demands me to read through his entire link in order to refute his argument (note: the difference is not different types of tests give different answers, but different people at different stages of infection)
This is clearly poor and unfair conduct - and he should be penalized with a conduct violations.
5.) Conduct - name calling and petulance.
Pros behaviour has been thoroughly odious thought:
“I guess the only way the defend such an organisation is by using slight of hand and trickery yourself. lol “
“Please quote errors first next time before shooting your mouth off. “
“Con has no respect for the voters time and intelligence. Thus, I wouldn't vote for somebody who bores and disrespects voters to this degree.”
“Here it is for the third time now. Read it dumb arse!”
“But don't worry con, you haven't got any of that preciously rare stuff in your small little head. lol “
Pros behaviour is egregious and clearly warrants a conduct mark down for this
6.) Source
Source points should be awarded to con too: pro frequently cites conspiracy website, YouTube channels, and has posted multiple sources that don’t agree with his own position (paleo diet specifically)
I have provided multiple scientific sources and valid evidence from credible sites, that increase the warrant of my position by showing physical images of viruses.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Comments have the RFD.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
To put it simply, this was a debate between one side constructed largely of logical assumptions and another constructed chiefly of actual evidence and support.
Pro's case largely amounts to statements about what sounds logical or illogical when it comes to disease and illness. The questions he poses from the outset are... interesting, but that's about it. None of them accomplish the goal of meeting his burden in this debate, which is to show that viruses can't exist. I'd like to emphasize that middle word: can't. Pro's goal throughout this debate seems to be aimed at introducing doubt, arguing that there are a series of alternative causes (e.g. diet and toxins) that cause all illnesses, though at best, that would only support the aim of showing that viruses do not cause the ailments he's pointing to. Can't implies that the existence of viruses is an impossibility, and while the logical tack does start down that road, Pro's efforts here largely seem to ignore evidence and just point out what he feels are logical impossibilities, regardless of what is known.
Con's case focuses entirely on what exists, and he goes into great detail regarding why Pro's alternative explanations simply do not suffice as meaningful challenges to a variety of diseases. Con points out that much of Pro's case is based on assertions that simply fail to meet any standard of proof, introducing nothing more than minimal doubt into the examples Con presents. It doesn't help that much of Con's support for the existence of viral diseases and their distinction from diet and toxins is either dropped or asserted as incorrect, rather than addressing the substance of Con's points. In particular, the point about repeated infectivity and transmission between organisms are basically dropped, both of which at least seriously challenge the notions that diet and toxins are responsible for these diseases. Much of Pro's response to direct imaging of viruses is to dismiss it as faked, though that once again sets the standard rather high for him to prove that it is true. He largely asserts this is true without support, or utilizes YouTube videos and other poorly-supported sources to make his point for him.
All of this leaves the door open for an easy Con win. He clearly shows that a virus can exist based on this evidence. Even if I buy much of Pro's logical argumentation and dismiss the evidence that Pro challenges directly, I'm still given enough reason to believe that Pro hasn't eliminated all possibility of a virus being the cause of every illness discussed in this debate. That's sufficient for me to vote Con, regardless, because if it is possible, then by definition, viruses can exist. So, even if I'm buying very little of Con's argument, any amount is sufficient to negate the resolution.
I will also award conduct to Con, as Pro repeatedly insulted him and others, calling those who believe in viruses “complete idiot[s],” calling his opponent a “dumb arse”, and stating that he has no logical capacity.
One last note. Pro says he has worked with in an electron microscope lab. I feel the need to point out that, even if this is true (it’s impossible to verify), Pro is speaking from his own authority rather than an independent one, which means any statements made based on that authority are tainted by his biases and desire to win this debate. I will say that I, too, have worked in an electron microscopy lab, and have images of my own purified virus particles (with all 11 criteria Pro listed) available if Pro is interested in seeing them, though I highly doubt he would take even that evidence seriously. My impression is that Pro’s views are so strongly held that meeting any set of criteria will always be insufficient, regardless of whether Pro himself sets them.
Hey, if someone's going to hold the line on basic facts about viruses, why not me?
You have the patience of a saint.
Hey, welcome back - can’t imagine you’ll be around long, but always happy to point out just how little you understand basic facts.
You’re right: plants don’t have antibodies. However, rabbits do, and scientists do this thing where they inject rabbits with virus particles so that they generate those antibodies. You can then purifybthose antibodies from their blood. We then take viral extractions (e.g. ground up leaf issue suspended in buffer), boil it in detergent, run it on a gel, and blot the contents of that gel onto a membrane. We then probe that membrane with the antibodies we got from those rabbits, often attaching a protein that makes it possible to detect the proteins with chemiluminescence. Again, it’s called a western blot, and shockingly, I’ve done it enough times to speak about this without copy-pasting or looking up anything. In fact, I’d love to see you find anything from my posts that isn’t in quotes or a link and find the source for it. Feel free to Google search as much as you want, these are my words and my experiences, as well as those of my colleagues.
I’ve already responded to your claim on fractals. I know what they are.
It appears that you have made a big mistake.
Refer to - 6. Plants don't have any antibodies. Thus, you are just a fraud who knows nothing about biology at all.
All you have been doing is cut and pasting information from the internet without really understanding the information.
What are fractals?
http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/abop/abop-ch8.pdf
But regardless of your own sources, you aren't answering the basic facts I'm presenting you with, so I will just start listing them every post until you respond.
1. There are no fungi in the soil of the plants I'm using, and they have plentiful health-supporting microbes available.
2. They are watered to exactly the same extent as surrounding plants, which do not experience these symptoms. They also have the same soil source as those plants, and they're drawn from the same seed lot.
3. They exist in the exact same closed and regulated environment as other plants, receiving the same amount of light, same climate, same pesticides, everything.
4. The greenhouse is consistently treated week-to-week with the same pesticides aimed at eliminating all insect pests, including thrips, whiteflies, leafhoppers, aphids and mites.
5. Plants receiving these inoculations show these symptoms on both inoculated and distal leaves, showing that there is clearly movement of whatever is causing these symptoms through the plant.
6. Plants receiving these inoculations contain viral particles, as detected by electron microscopy, polymerase chain reaction (amplification of the two RNAs present in these tissues), western blot (direct and specific detection of the coat protein from these viruses using antibodies), and northern blot (direct and specific detection of the RNAs using full-length sequences as a probe). None of these are present in uninoculated plants, nor in buffer-inoculated plants.
7. I can inoculate new plants with purified particles from these inoculated plants and see the same symptoms on those new plants.
Note that I'm not disagreeing that variables like overwatering or lack of nutrients could have substantial effects. However, it is your point that the symptoms I've presented to you are the result of something that differentiates these plants from others. Would you care to tell me what that cause is, given the above controls?
...Seriously? You think that full blades of grass dying in a field in a specific pattern are equivalent to very specific cells dying in a pattern on a single leaf? I don't know where you're getting this fractal BS, but you don't seem to understand the difference between a full plant response and a localized cellular response. Whether they have similar patterns or not has nothing to do with it - you can't simply proclaim that whole plant death and a localized cellular response are functionally equivalent. The comparison to shingles (another virus-caused disease) actually reinforces the point. Shingles is a cell-based response and not a full-body death response. If we're using your analogy, it would be like saying that a shingles rash with a very specific pattern is basically the same as a portion of the population dropping dead in the same pattern.
You also just happened to ignore what those two articles actually said. Again, the first one you posted was detailing virus-induced symptoms transmitted by mites. The second and third detailed symptoms caused by a fungal infection, meaning a disease state brought about by a microorganism. It is your claim that these three articles are all wrong: that the mites caused every symptom that appeared on those plants, and that overwatering was the sole means by which those ringspots were generated. Your articles blatantly disagree.
Shingles is virus-caused, genius.
Yes, you do have selective listening and learning. No, you didn't respond appropriately to the evidence.
All plants are based on fractals of growth. Thus, it doesn't matter if it is a leaf or a grass patch. The ring spot is a generic condition and is a fractal based organic pattern which occurs on various plants in various situations. It is similar to shingles which form on human skin when people eat inappropriate foods. Thus, if a plant receives inappropriate food (soil); a lack of water; too much water; wrong location; wrong climate; wrong soil type and or pesticide poisoning; - it will present with damaged leaves or some other sign of stress. Thus, silly humans think that they can grow any plant in any location when plants are mostly specialised to a specific area. Thus, plants have sensitivities to specific soil types; rain fall; climate conditions and local animals which may have evolved symbiotic relationships with plants. Thus, bees will spread the pollen of plants which is an example of a symbiotic relationship.
Your examples of overwatering are similarly selective. First off, we're talking about a very different plant now, one with a lot of individual blades that have gone necrotic in a very specific pattern. It's not similar to ringspots forming on individual leaves, particularly as that is a specific, localized chlorotic response, whereas this is just wholesale death of many members of a given plant species in a given area. Second, the article points to fungi as the culprit, stating that overwatering is not killing the plants, but feeding the fungi (you do realize, by the way, that fungi are themselves infectious diseases, right?). The second article says multiple times that fungicides ameliorate the problem, indicating that the fungi is causing the harm. The third article challenges the usage of fungicides on the basis of what effects they have on good soil microbes, but they similarly state that it is caused by fungi, and their usage of beneficial microbes to outcompete the harmful ones similarly shows that it is the microbes that are essential to the health of this grass. So, once again, a ringspot symptom (very different from anything I've presented) is caused by an infectious organism (a fungus) that can be treated in a variety of ways. You're not helping your point.
You have the most conveniently selective memory and reading skills I've ever seen.
Let's start with your selective memory. You conveniently forgot that my greenhouse is sprayed weekly to kill insects, which, yes, include mites. You similarly forgot that my plants are watered by drip irrigation, a very different watering system from the usual lawn, bluegrass or otherwise. Finally, you forgot that my soils are autoclaved to remove fungi, returning beneficial microbes to the soil thereafter. So, even if you're somehow correct that these symptoms are ringspots coming from something else, they don't apply to the samples I've been using.
The first paper shows specific examples of different symptoms caused by, wait for it, Brevipalpus transmitted viruses or BTVs. It shows examples of those viruses in the mites directly, showcasing symptoms brought on by a wide range of viruses and clarifying which symptoms appear with which kind of infection. Note that there are an array of symptoms, and that if we use Occam's Razor (you love it so much, after all), you would have no means whatsoever to explain these differences. You would just have to assume that mites cause extremely varied symptoms. Yes, mites do cause damage to the leaves. No, mites have never caused ringspots to form in any pattern across leaves.
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/orn/mites/Brevipalpus_californicus.htm
How to fix ring spot without chemicals.
https://www.organolawn.com/services/lawn-fungus/necrotic-ring-spot
Over watering causing ringspot.
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/yard-garden/necrotic-ring-spot-of-kentucky-bluegrass-2-900/
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-90162010000300014
Extract -
As our knowledge about possible BTV advanced in the last decade, a large number of cases were detected, mostly in ornamentals, causing localized lesions. One reason why these viruses have been neglected is the lack of systemic infection. If the mite population declines, due to seasonal factors, and the infected organs fall off or die, the sources of inoculum are reduced, and the disease literally disappears.
Thus, it's not the virus, its the mite which causes the infection.
First, you keep asserting that ringspots can form by other means, and yet you have not provided any support for that claim. Scratching a leaf does not induce specific symptoms like this. It causes wilting and some general chlorosis, but we're not talking about those symptoms. We're talking about ringspots. Where is your evidence that rub inoculation causes ringspots to form? I can answer that: there is none. Previously, I've performed these same experiments with controls, inoculating plants with buffer lacking any infectious material. They do not show ringspots.
Second, remember that list of questions I posed below? You know, the ones you completely ignored that explain why things like this (rub inoculation) cannot explain the symptoms seen? We're not just talking about inoculated leaves here, we're talking about movement through the plant. Even if I somehow generated ringspots on the leaves simply by rubbing them, that doesn't explain the appearance of symptoms on distal leaves. If we're still using Occam's Razor, you would now have to add in an additional assumption: that rub inoculation of one leaf somehow shows injury on leaves that are uninoculated. A virus spreading through the plant doesn't have any similar assumptions associated with it. Similarly, you would have to include assumptions that two distinct viral RNAs just happen to be present only in plants with these symptoms, that virions can be isolated from these plants, and that those virions can be used to generate the same symptoms on other plants via multiple different inoculation methods. If you're correct that injury to the plant has the fewest assumptions, how does it explain any of this? You seem to think that the virus is, itself, an assumption, yet it is the only means by which we can explain the fact that all these things are consistently occurring. It is far more assumptive to claim that a non-specific factor is the cause of these symptoms.
If you rub a plant you will damage it. Thus, Occam's razor still applies. The simple action of rubbing a delicate plant is obviously sufficient for the plant to be injured. The injured plant will then try to repair itself by creating scar tissue which happens to be in a ring shape. Problem solved. Thanks Occam, for demonstrating to this person that a simple solution is always close at hand. Thus, there is still no need to do complicated and expensive experiments using unnatural apparatus. Nature is simple. Humans are complex and devious.
I didn't inoculate the uninfected plants. I inoculated the infected ones, which involved just rubbing the surface of a single leaf with a pestle contaminated with the virus.
Again, you keep making these statements about ringspots, yet you do not provide any evidence to support your claims. Show me an example of a ringspot generated by over-watering.
Occam's Razor doesn't really apply in this case, but let's assume for the moment that it does. What assumptions do we have to make to believe that that caused these symptoms? Well, overwatering causes a number of different symptoms, so we would have to believe that it only caused these symptoms and no others, which doesn't fall in line with expectations. We would have to believe that it consistently only caused these symptoms in plants that also were rub inoculated with the virus, another point that doesn't fall in line with these results. Finally, we would have to believe that plants watered consistently by drip irrigation were overwatered, despite a full greenhouse of other plants that were watered in exactly the same way, none of the others of which showed signs of infection. So, not only would you have to make the assumption that ringspots can form in overwatered plants, but you would have no explanation for the differences between plants.
Now, let's apply Occam's Razor to the infection. I inoculated half of these plants, they all were treated the same way beyond that inoculation. After a period of 10 days, inoculated plants showed ringspot symptoms. Others did not. I was able to extract and purify virion particles from all infected plants, none from uninfected plants. I was able to detect viral RNA from both RNAs included in these viral particles. I was able to take viral particles isolated from these plants, rub inoculate them on new plants, and produce the same symptoms. Tell me: where's the assumption in here?
What do you mean by inoculate? How did you inoculate the uninfected plants?
Note - Ringspot can be induced simply by over watering of plants. Thus, why even bother looking for a complex solution when a simple solution is already available? Occam's razor applies. The simple solution is always the right solution.
Yay for jumping to conclusions! You can add good bacteria back to sterile soil, as is done partly through the fertilizer added to our water source (a supply that is filtered multiple times and treated with antifungals) and partially by directly mixing soil with a bacterial mixture intended for the purpose.
But all of this is besides the point. You could present 50 different reasons why my plants may not have been healthy, but you’ve provided none that explain the symptom we’re seeing. If autoclaved soil could cause this symptom (note: it cannot), why did it only appear in inoculated plants? Why did the symptom spread through those plants from inoculated leaves? Why can I extract and purify virus particles from these plants and not from uninoculated plants? Why can I take the leaf material from these plants, grind it up, dilute it, and use it to inoculate another plant, generating the same viral particles containing the same RNA sequences? Why will those inoculations consistently generate the same symptoms, regardless of changes to watering, soil microbes, insects present, season of year, time of day, temperature, weather, length and duration of day and night cycles, presence of fertilizer, degree of human handling, other plants present in the same soil, or any of the other variables I can insert into this experiment? Why do we never see symptoms of this sort in plants not infected with a ringspot virus?
So, the soil in the green house has been purified (autoclaved). Hmmmm????
Thus, all the bacteria have been killed and the soil is completely dead. No wonder you have a problem. It's the same as giving a sick person an antibiotic which kills all their interior gut flora. This is medical and pharmaceutical industry profit making insanity. rofl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
I noticed that I forgot the overwatering theory. These plants are watered by drip irrigation, meaning that all my plants received the same amount of water over time. The plants I had not inoculated remained asymptomatic, while the inoculated plants showed ringspot symptoms. So that's a third theory down. Want to try again?
You've been doing nothing but making claims about the ringspot being the result of some other means. You said you have plants that had these symptoms and magically were cured by fertilizer? Show me. Where are your pictures?
As for your theories about where they came from, I'm afraid both are bunk. The greenhouse in which I do my work uses autoclaved soil, meaning that anything alive in it (fungi included) are killed. The same greenhouse is also sprayed weekly for thrips, aphids and whiteflies, meaning that those insects are not an issue.
As for the image... I'm honestly shocked you haven't noticed my profile picture, though I will point out that Virtuoso came to comment on this debate without any contact from me. He reached out to me, not the other way around.
Note - The ring spot is caused by over watering of plants and could be either a fungus or a mark caused by an adult thrip feeding on the plant. It's not a virus!!!!!!!!!!!
Whiteflame continues to waffle on endlessly; trying to avoid having to provide any evidence. I asked him to provide the viral stain photos which he said that he had. Still waiting. And now,........... he is running to the admin, in the hope that he can weasel his way out of it through political manipulation and manoeuvring. What next???
Honestly, sounds like a better idea than it would be in practice. It's one thing if Somebody actually wanted to engage on fundamental assumptions that microbiologists and virologists engage in, which I have no doubt we do (I don't think there's a profession that doesn't do this) and I don't doubt that they do cause problems with our research. My impression is that Somebody is really only interested in dismissing evidence using personal opinion, which means he's not particularly interested in an evidence-based approach. He thinks we're all fraudsters, giving him sufficient reason to dismiss all evidence as fake and turning a debate like this into an exercise in futility. He doesn't want to prove us wrong because, by his own admission, he can't: every study on viruses is fraudulent because none of them support his view. All he can do is introduce doubt, and even that is not the result of any careful analysis of the facts, but rather a series of broad claims.
I'd honestly love to see you debate Somebody on this.
Like I said, not interested in providing you something simply because you're craving an opportunity to dismiss yet another piece of evidence based on limited personal experience. I've shown other people those virions, don't feel the need to respond to your bait just to have you dismiss them offhand with absolutely no evidence or reasoning.
As for these symptoms, actually, I'd love to see those images. There are many examples of mosaic symptoms and chlorosis in plants that haven't been watered or received sufficient nutrients, but ringspots are pretty unique. So, please, present your photos.
I think you are experiencing a logical fallacy that I call venn diagram fallacy.
If sometimes symptoms of nutritional deficiency overlap with symptoms of viral diseases, this doesn't disprove the existence of viruses.
I thought you were going to show a photo of a virus. Not a photo of two leaves which are wilted. lol
Thus, you still remain a fraud. I have plants in my garden which have similar markings. I added some fertiliser and the markings soon disappeared. Thus, they were vitamin deficient and it wasn't caused by a virus. I can show you before and after photos of the leaves.
Not really. You'll notice that the ringspots are more individual on the inoculated leaves and radiate out from the vascular tissue of the leaf on the distal leaves, so we can see differences like that. We can also inoculate into different plants and see different symptoms, but that's about it.
can you manipulate the designs they make in any way?
that ringspot virus is kind of sexy.
These images are from my own samples:
https://imgur.com/a/D9DUwZO
https://imgur.com/a/NaHj89j
No need to apologize. Lots of misconceptions when it comes to what viruses and bacteria, respectively, cause in terms of disease. It's all good.
You are conditioned to think that. You are also conditioned to make them feel more shit for admitting they believe in it than the fact they believe in it. This is all by design; social engineering over the years.
Okay, sorry
Are you serious about supporting flat earth? I sometimes think that all flat earthers are basically one giant Poe. At least I hope so.
Black Plague is actually caused by a bacterium, Yersinia pestis. It causes buboes to form on the skin, which may bear some similarity to these, though in reality these are more chlorotic lesions caused by a necrotic response in the leaf tissue. You can actually see some of that necrosis in that second image.
Is the virus in the second photo like the black plague virus? The pattern seems similar on the skin.
Continental Drift (CD) may be a lie as I support flat earth theory and think that is potentially a lie about how things came to be how they are physically (there's only records post-drift it seems) but even on the flat earth some CD is possible, basically Antarctica is the outer ring and the Arctic is inside and the way the oceans and land interact position-wise can be phenomenally mystical indeed, so CD is neither here nor there in my eyes. I believe in it because it makes sense that the African-type humans moved around and ended up fucking and reproducing with the Inuit-type humans to create the variation in races and such. That doesn't fully explain 'white people' but that's because I believe there was a race/ethnicity that is in between Jew and Caucasian that... Well, it's a long story and I don't fully understand it myself.
Time changing with acceleration is to do with what you define as 'time'. If time is the 'true timeline' then you are correct. If time is the time we perceive and observe and experience, then you are incorrect as that time can truly make a second become a year if the disparity in acceleration is that severe. I don't believe in outer space being what we're told but there is still acceleration and Einstein wasn't in on any lie, he's a genius of great proportions that blatantly was unfairly able to succeed due to a rich and influential father in the science industry but nonetheless he used that to rebel against the system in a non-revolt type way. There is no way Einstein would make a truly hoax theory for the sake of the Illuminati, I DO NOT consider this viable. Newton, sure, Einstein no.
CO2 and climate change is sort of true. It's utter bullshit why they keep talking about carbon footprint as in CO2 instead of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. Carbon is an issue but CO2 is not the main reason.
Not a problem! Would love to see those photos. Hope you can get them uploaded
Glad you like them! I've got some pictures of my own, but I'm having a hard time uploading them at the moment.
I was thinking the same thing myself, though apparently Somebody's added more things he's all too happy to dismiss without evidence, so I give the school district at least some credit for doing more to justify their views and defend them.
Those photos are really cool!
Excuse me? What dignity is there in posting a photo that you will instantly dismiss? I'll open this up to everyone else: if you want to see my virions, I'd be more than happy to show you. I love the pictures I have, and I like to show them off wherever I can. I'm not going to use them to give Somebody more of an ax to grind because all he cares to do is dismiss based on his own personal beliefs. If he wants to believe I'm "a coward and a fraud", he's welcome to do so. For the rest of you, the virus produces some really cool symptoms. It's worth checking out:
https://bugwoodcloud.org/images/768x512/1402031.jpg
https://bugwoodcloud.org/images/768x512/5332064.jpg
Some so called "discoveries" need to be undiscovered and buried forever.
1. Germ theory of disease.
2. Continental drift.
3. Time can change with acceleration.
4. CO2 causes climate change.
I’m thinking of Kitzmiller vs Dover.
You still have time to redeem your dignity and reputation by providing the data. If you don't, it will be forever known on this website that you are both a coward and a fraud.
Yes, because this kind of post makes it just so inviting to show you work that took me months to grow, extract, purify, fix and image. It’s great to know that you’ve made it your mission to complain about assumes fraud to the point that you wish to bring this to court. I’d love to see you try - it will be thrown out immediately.
Let's have a sue-each-other party and see who falls the hardest.
@Somebody
https://www.debateart.com/rules
"6. Threats
Misconduct should be reported to moderation rather than complained about in the forums. Even if an accusation or complaint is justified, it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints. Allow moderation to handle the situation. Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):
1. Threats of legal action."