Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[A Freeman]

Logically, the first question that must be answered is this:

Do viruses exist?


https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/viru ... it-matters

https://odysee.com/@HealthOdyssey:9/do- ... ses-even:6



https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items ... 9_text.pdf

https://archive.org/details/the_poisoned_needle_mcbean

[Clownboat]

A thing can be both created and evolved. Evolution IS creation. The real question is, is evolution a sentient process? Viruses my be a non-living automatic process on a molecular level, too primitive to be compared to more advanced created/evolved creatures.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time. This mechanism is not sentient.

[Clownboat]

Logically, the first question that must be answered is this:

Do viruses exist?

There are numerous examples of viruses which are known to cause disease in humans. In the same way we can trace DNA left at the scene of the crime, scientists can identify viruses which are the cause of human disease by isolating them from infected individuals, sequencing their genetic material to identify them, directly visualising them (by electron microscopy) and indirectly visualising their effects on cells, as well as confirming their ability to cause disease by testing isolated and characterised viruses in animal models”.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN23335C/

In regards to Dr. Stefan Lanka:
A German biologist who offered €100,000 (£71,350; $106,300) to anyone who could prove that measles is a virus has been ordered by a court to pay up.
Stefan Lanka, who believes the illness is psychosomatic, made the pledge four years ago on his website.
The reward was later claimed by German doctor David Barden
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31864218

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #12]
There's a lot more to evolution than that.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #12]
There's a lot more to evolution than that.

If you disagree with my definition, please explain so I can amend it. The reply you made does not foster debate being as vague as it is.

[A Freeman]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #13]
For those don't like clowning around, and thus have a genuine interest in the truth of this matter, please consider the following FACTS, which share a summary of the full story (instead of deceitfully cutting it off after the lower court's erroneous ruling):

Measles Virus put to the test. Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court...

Since the early 1990s, German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka has been at the forefront of challenging the medical theory stating that viruses are the cause of infectious diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, the flu, polio, herpes, or measles. Caroline Markolin has presented Dr. Lanka’s activities in her lecture video “Virus Mania” in great details (watch Part 2 of the recordings on this website – starting at 08:08). Based on his studies in virology, Dr. Lanka discovered that viruses are vital components of simple life-forms that do not exist in complex organisms such as humans, animals, or plants. His research shows that the viruses believed to cause “viral infections” are in reality ordinary cell particles that have been misinterpreted as constituents of the viruses in question. Dr. Lanka also determined that viruses don’t have a destructive effect on the host, as commonly believed. These findings are in full
accordance with the discoveries of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer who demonstrated already in the 1980s that contrary to the standard theory, microbes do not harm the organism but play instead a supportive role during the healing process of diseases (see Fourth Biological Law of the New Medicine).

The “measles virus trial” between Dr. Stefan Lanka and German medical doctor David Bardens has by now received international attention (see the 2015 reports in CTV News Canada and BBC News). The court case has not only heated up the ongoing “virus debate”. It also fuelled the discussion about the justification of childhood vaccination and of vaccination in general.

Here is a brief overview of the court proceedings:

On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows:

“The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.”

In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the
€ 100,000 to his bank account.

The six publications are:
1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients
with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.

2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85

3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.

5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.

6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.

Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.

On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.

On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement.
Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.

On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.

Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the
€ 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.

According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”).

Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.

Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these.

The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.

Dr. Lanka: “With the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.”

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #13]
For those don't like clowning around, and thus have a genuine interest in the truth of this matter, please consider the following FACTS, which share a summary of the full story (instead of deceitfully cutting it off after the lower court's erroneous ruling):

Measles Virus put to the test. Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court...

Since the early 1990s, German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka has been at the forefront of challenging the medical theory stating that viruses are the cause of infectious diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, the flu, polio, herpes, or measles. Caroline Markolin has presented Dr. Lanka’s activities in her lecture video “Virus Mania” in great details (watch Part 2 of the recordings on this website – starting at 08:08). Based on his studies in virology, Dr. Lanka discovered that viruses are vital components of simple life-forms that do not exist in complex organisms such as humans, animals, or plants. His research shows that the viruses believed to cause “viral infections” are in reality ordinary cell particles that have been misinterpreted as constituents of the viruses in question. Dr. Lanka also determined that viruses don’t have a destructive effect on the host, as commonly believed. These findings are in full
accordance with the discoveries of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer who demonstrated already in the 1980s that contrary to the standard theory, microbes do not harm the organism but play instead a supportive role during the healing process of diseases (see Fourth Biological Law of the New Medicine).

The “measles virus trial” between Dr. Stefan Lanka and German medical doctor David Bardens has by now received international attention (see the 2015 reports in CTV News Canada and BBC News). The court case has not only heated up the ongoing “virus debate”. It also fuelled the discussion about the justification of childhood vaccination and of vaccination in general.

Here is a brief overview of the court proceedings:

On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows:

“The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.”

In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the
€ 100,000 to his bank account.

The six publications are:
1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients
with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.

2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85

3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.

5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.

6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.

Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.

On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.

On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement.
Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.

On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.

Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the
€ 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.

According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”).

Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.

Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these.

The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.

Dr. Lanka: “With the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.”

I think your emotions might have gotten the best of you. To test for this, I ask and challenge you:

Can you find any statement in my post that you feel you have shown to be incorrect?
If so, be specific and name it.

Currently, I see a wall of text that fails to show anything that I said to be incorrect and await to be shown just where I was wrong in what I provided.

[A Freeman]

The following excerpt is from:
https://cognizantminds.substack.com/p/n ... -proven-to

No Virus Has Ever Been Proven To Exist
Virology is pseudoscience, read this article to see how.

Ramese Sanders
May 04, 2022

Before I continue I just want to let it be known, when I say “no virus has ever been proven to exist”, I am not saying people don’t get “sick” or die, I’m simply stating, the cause of people getting “sick” or dying has never been proven to be from a “virus”, in order to prove that a “virus” is the cause of “sickness” or death, you first have to prove the existence of that said “virus”, this has never been done, ever.

There is not a single scientific study published anywhere that shows a “virus” was isolated, purified, characterized and sequenced directly from the fluids of a sick host. This is a huge problem because “viruses” are said to spread via fluids of a sick host, so if there’s never been a “virus” found in the fluids of a sick host, how is that a known fact?!

In cell culture experiments, the researchers take a sample from someone who tested positive for said “virus” and combine it with other material like monkey kidney cells (Vero cells), Fetal Bovine Serum, antibiotics, nutrients and etc.. and the cultures are usually grown in a humidified incubator with CO2, and after a few days the cells undergo a cytopathic effect, where they break down and die and the cause is blamed on the “virus”. Now lets backtrack, when the researchers took the sample from the person who tested positive for said “virus”, where did they ever isolate the “virus” from the sample before combining it with other material? How do they know the “virus” is in the sample if they never saw it? How can the cytopathic effect be attributed to the “virus” if the “virus” was never isolated and introduced into the culture by itself? They just presupposed it was in the sample, they never actually found the “virus”. Cell culture experiments do not prove the existence of “viruses” because their methods are flawed.

[A Freeman]

The following excerpt is from:
https://drsambailey.com/why-nobody-can-find-a-virus/

Why Nobody Can Find a Virus

Perhaps prior to 2020 the issue of virus isolation was of minimal interest to the vast majority of earth’s inhabitants. Most people blindly accept the medical establishment’s claims that viruses exist and can cause disease. They otherwise don’t give it a second thought. Sometimes you get unwell, and a doctor informs you, “it’s probably a viral illness” – but almost every time, you get better again.

However, the increasingly negative impacts from government instigated policies in the name of the “corona” crisis has resulted in some healthy new interest in the subject. Social cohesion in households and communities is being strained, businesses are being run into the ground, and suspicions about the requirement to be injected every four months to maintain protection against an invisible enemy are on the rise. If no virus has been isolated then its very existence is pure speculation. A phantom menace that has no confirmed physical presence, merely a ruinous psychological construct manifesting as a living nightmare. And those who ignore the pivotal issue of virus isolation are blindly accepting a premise on which all manner of lies can be built.

But there are scientific papers that prove isolation?…

The confusion surrounding virus isolation stems from the fact that many published scientific papers state in their titles or claim in their abstracts that they successfully “isolated” a virus. In 2020 and 2021, we lost track of the number of times we were sent such papers as apparent proof of the “SARS-CoV-2” virus. Similarly, industry-funded “fact-checking” sites have a propensity to link to such papers to reassure their spoon-fed readers that the “virus” has been isolated. Unfortunately, such disinformation sites fail to inform their audience that the virologists are not referring to actual physical isolation of any virus and have instead substituted the meaning of the word isolation for something that means almost the opposite.

Researchers such as Christine Massey have tirelessly collated Freedom of Information requests from governments around the world to clearly expose the fact that the alleged causal agent of COVID-19 has never once been physically isolated. While at least one government supported microbiologist has claimed this is disingenuous as the requests are worded in such a way that they are not consistent with the methodology of modern virology, this misses the whole point: the modern virologists are not isolating viruses in the way that the public and probably most of the medical profession are led to believe. Instead, they moved the goalposts.

https://odysee.com/the-truth-about-viru ... t=6.607936

The excuses for this sleight of hand should be rejected and the isolation of a virus should mean the same as it does with any other entity on the planet – that is, in its pure form, separated out from other material. It is done with things that are smaller than alleged viruses, such as proteins, and things that are bigger such as bacteria. It is not a technological limitation or because of some special property that precludes this process from being essential to the process of real isolation.

The most definitive evidence of a virus would be finding it directly in a host such as a human.

However, despite the fact we are told that a single sneeze could contain 200 million SARS-CoV-2 particles, when we take a mucous or blood sample from a patient not one virus particle can be found. And what about taking samples from hundreds or even thousands of people said to be infected and have a disease such as COVID-19 and then combining them altogether? We’re not sure if this has ever been tried but apparently even then if we purified such a sample, the excuse is apparently the same: we wouldn’t find any viruses in there! So, we are expected to believe that a patient is overwhelmed with trillions of viral particles but we can’t find any on or inside them.

[A Freeman]

The following excerpt is from:
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/state ... ation-sovi


Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)

By Tom Cowan on February 19, 2021

Isolation: The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness.
– Oxford English Dictionary

The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:

- the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical
spike or other proteins;

- the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;

- “variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;

- it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19.

In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus.
First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. Without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifuges i.e. purifies the specimen. This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages1 and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.

These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues.2 (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.)3

1 Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli Akhwale et al, PLOS One, Published: April 25, 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0215734 — accessed 2/15/21
2 “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration,” Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 73511/full — accessed 2/15/21
3 “The Role of Extraellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses,” Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020 May

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fraud.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fraud.