1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

LOL.... I think you skipped a lot of the paper and focused on only a few phrases that fit your obsession.

Here's the full text of the paper. Obviously since you're so familiar with it you can quickly find the precise sections that provide the basis for your interpretation:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3181/00379727-86-21073

It's all there for anyone to read Sir.

18 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Sorry to tell you Sir. You are badly informed. If your sources say they have found, isolated and purified a virus; then they are telling porkies. Lying in other words.

My group has research hundreds of papers that say they have isolated a virus. On reading the methodology of these papers it is obvious that they have done no such thing.

This all goes back to 1954 and Enders' measles experiments. Virologists are simply well-paid pseudoscientists.

Stiddle, can you show us on this doll where the bad virologist touched you?

Is that what's at the bottom of this?

Were you traumatized as a child by a virologist?

8 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Stiddle, can you show us on this doll where the bad virologist touched you?

Is that what's at the bottom of this?

Were you traumatized as a child by a virologist?

That was a definite LOL moment....555

22 minutes ago, cdemundo said:

Stiddle, can you show us on this doll where the bad virologist touched you?

Is that what's at the bottom of this?

Were you traumatized as a child by a virologist?

If I can save babes and toddlers from getting toxic filth pumped into them I'd have done OK.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by Stiddle Mump

Narure? - Here's a description of a fallacious appeal to nature...

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1150230440487854

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It's all there for anyone to read Sir.

back to the ole dodgeball game.... LOL. just as always.... unwilling to backup ANY statement/denial/claim by doing a little work. Just a lazy troll.

36 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

back to the ole dodgeball game.... LOL. just as always.... unwilling to backup ANY statement/denial/claim by doing a little work. Just a lazy troll.

I'm not making the claim there is a virus. You are Sir.

Point to any passage in the paper that shows isolation and purification.

5 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It's all there for anyone to read Sir.

but, but, but... you claimed to have read it... we need your guidance to the exact spot where your beliefs are shown to be true... otherwise we just be guessin.

When it comes to science hoaxes, I'm just a babe in the woods. You're definitely AN's foremost expert. Please help.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by gamb00ler

22 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

As I have said before Sir. Is it not up to those making the claim to provide the evidence? If a virus ecists'show the evidence that it does.

So simple. Yet you can't understand it?

Burden of proof

You're quite right about one thing: the person making a claim bears the burden of proof.

Which is precisely why your argument collapses.

You haven't merely asked whether viruses exist. You've made the very specific claim that “no virus has ever been found, isolated and purified.” That's your claim, so where is your evidence for it?

Your unicorn analogy doesn't help. We don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist before rejecting a claim that they do. We look at the evidence.

And unlike unicorns, viruses can be isolated, visualised and genetically sequenced.

So the real question isn't “Where's your evidence?” It's:

What evidence would you actually accept?

If the answer is “none”, then you've solved the problem rather neatly:

You haven't disproved viruses. You've made your belief impossible to disprove.

5 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It's all there for anyone to read Sir.

Is Evan's failure to be found in:

Materials and methods. Collection of speci- mens. Throat washings, venous blood and feces were obtained from 7 patients as early as possible after a clinical diagnosis of measles was established. In 5 instances the time at which specimens were collected in re- lation to the onset of exanthem is given in the case histories described below or in Table I

or in:

Manner of passage in tissue culture. Serial passage of the various strains (Table I) was accomplished as routine by removal of the culture medium between the 4th and the 16th day after inoculation and immediate transfer of 0.1 ml to each of a number of fresh cultures. Successful passage of the agent with fluids that had been previously centrifuged at 2500 rpm to remove cellular elements has also been repeatedly demonstrated.

Or is it in:

Cytopathic changes induced by agents isolated from cases of measles. The first of 8 agents obtained from blood or throat washings of measles cases and exhibiting com- parable properties was isolated in cultures of human kidney tissue following addition of the blood of Case 3. In each of the 3 cultures that were inoculated cytopathic changes were ob- served on the 7th day.

See.... I'm just flailing about without your guidance.

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Burden of proof

You're quite right about one thing: the person making a claim bears the burden of proof.

Which is precisely why your argument collapses.

You haven't merely asked whether viruses exist. You've made the very specific claim that “no virus has ever been found, isolated and purified.” That's your claim, so where is your evidence for it?

Your unicorn analogy doesn't help. We don't need to prove that unicorns don't exist before rejecting a claim that they do. We look at the evidence.

And unlike unicorns, viruses can be isolated, visualised and genetically sequenced.

So the real question isn't “Where's your evidence?” It's:

What evidence would you actually accept?

If the answer is “none”, then you've solved the problem rather neatly:

You haven't disproved viruses. You've made your belief impossible to disprove.

Taking the bolded parts.

I stand by this. “no virus has ever been found, isolated and purified.”

Where can I see the evidence of this event? ''viruses can be isolated,''

What evidence would you actually accept? If there is an experiment that satisfied my postulates then I'll certainly change my mind, and say so on AN. And the other platforms where I post. And apologise to my followers for being so dull.

31 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I'm not making the claim there is a virus. You are Sir.

Point to any passage in the paper that shows isolation and purification.

and you have thousands of times said Enders erred or failed. Point us to those spots in the paper. You must have a reason for your criticisms... show your cards!! I'm starting to think that all this time.... you were bluffing.... you can't blame me since you never show what you're holding.

You can clear this whole matter up... you show us how and where Enders failed/erred and you've completed at least one step on the path to dethroning the germ theory... BUT.... if you come up a DUD... then Ender's results stand and you're shown to be WRONG.

The stakes are HIGH... the excitement is building.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by gamb00ler

12 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Taking the bolded parts.

I stand by this. “no virus has ever been found, isolated and purified.”

Where can I see the evidence of this event? ''viruses can be isolated,''

What evidence would you actually accept? If there is an experiment that satisfied my postulates then I'll certainly change my mind, and say so on AN. And the other platforms where I post. And apologise to my followers for being so dull.

I posted a Youtube video once.

You claimed it was fake.

Your challenge for AN members to prove a virus has never been isolated is absurd since no one here works in a Pfizer lab.

It's like asking someone to prove God exists. No one ever can so it makes you look like the genius by default.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by save the frogs

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

and you have thousands of times said Enders erred or failed. Point us to those spots in the paper. You must have a reason for your criticisms... show your cards!!

Read the pqssages.

He grew a mix, in which he surmised there was a virus. After adding chemicals', and starving the culture, it died. Ah yes! It died because of the virus. However the culture in the control also died under the same procedures.

It's all in Enders' summary. Have a read Sir.

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I posted a Youtube video once.

You claimed it was fake.

Your challenge for AN members to prove a virus has never been isolated is absurd since no one here works in a Pfizer lab.

Was that about the eggs. Can't quite recall.

The AN members that say viruses exist. Diseases exist. Vaccines are good. Vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines have saved millions of lives. They are believing what white-coats say without question. Well I don't.

Show an experiment where a virus has been found, isolated and purified. Then we would be in business. Being able to then show that the isolate causes certain conditions.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by Stiddle Mump

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

t's all in Enders' summary. Have a read Sir.

this must be it:

Conclusion. The findings just summarized support the presumption that this group of agents is composed of representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.

Summary. Eight agents exhibiting the properties of viruses have been isolated in cul-tures of human or simian renal cells from the blood or throat washings of five cases of typical measles. Multiplication of the agents in vitro is accompanied by characteristic changes in the cells. Primarily these changes consist in the formation of syncytial giant cells wherein the chromatin assumes a marginal position and is replaced centrally by an acid- ophilic substance of unknown nature. The cytopathogenic effect of at least one of the agents is inhibited by convalescent phase measles sera from other patients with measles. Antigen appears during cultivation in vitro of the measles agents that reacts specifically in complement fixation tests with convalescent phase measles sera.

It's your turn at bat. Let's see if you know which end of the bat to use. If you prefer you can use a cricket bat... it won't matter.

Somehow it seems so anticlimactic.... you gave us such a powerful buildup... kind of fizzled out.

Edited September 14Sep 14 by gamb00ler

18 hours ago, kwilco said:

Have you read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre?

Just a quick look at your profile (replies to the never ending battles on this forum ) ........i can immediately see which side of the isle you pull from. Personally i am one of the few here who give my opinion , sometimes with an "explanation" .... but of course it is laughable to think that i am going to change someone's opinion that differs from mine. And yet, the dogs keep on tugging with more and more vigor, hoping to win the bone . I pride myself on figuring that out and refusing to participate no matter how hard someone tries to bully me into it .

On topics where health and "medicine" are concerned.... well, i am very much invested in the attempt to put all the "information" i can access into the organ i affectionately call "rumak's brain" (Opinions are formed in the brain through a complex network of cognitive processes, emotional responses, and physical neural connections. The brain does not have a single "opinion center"; instead, it blends logic, memory, and emotion to build your viewpoint.)......... So, to be fair i would have to access tons of "info" from many viewpoints and then try to untangle the whole Kit and cabootle in this organ of mine to choose an opinion. For most people, i believe they gradually form very distinct, set in concrete patterns which lead to quick decisions on matters based on their "alliances" and simply resort to confirmation bias on basically every topic.

As for "Bad Science" ...."The main premise of the book Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is that society is constantly misled by flawed evidence, sensationalist media, and pseudoscience, and that the public needs critical thinking skills and a basic understanding of real science to protect themselves" (wikipedia)

All i can say about that synopsis is that the source is well-known to be biased . Maybe not from your point of view.... but most certainly by a very substantial number of others. And so it is with health matters, vaccines, "science" ........ The real joke is those who profess to know the "real truth" .... where others are just guilty of "misinformation" . I ask you and everyone " who is checking the fact checkers " ?

19 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

I posted a Youtube video once.

You claimed it was fake.

Your challenge for AN members to prove a virus has never been isolated is absurd since no one here works in a Pfizer lab.

It's like asking someone to prove God exists. No one ever can so it makes you look like the genius by default.

A load of old nonsense. That vid,

Flu is NOT a disease. It is not caused by a virus.

The flu is a natural body function.

10 minutes ago, rumak said:

Just a quick look at your profile (replies to the never ending battles on this forum ) ........i can immediately see which side of the isle you pull from. Personally i am one of the few here who give my opinion , sometimes with an "explanation" .... but of course it is laughable to think that i am going to change someone's opinion that differs from mine. And yet, the dogs keep on tugging with more and more vigor, hoping to win the bone . I pride myself on figuring that out and refusing to participate no matter how hard someone tries to bully me into it .

On topics where health and "medicine" are concerned.... well, i am very much invested in the attempt to put all the "information" i can access into the organ i affectionately call "rumak's brain" (Opinions are formed in the brain through a complex network of cognitive processes, emotional responses, and physical neural connections. The brain does not have a single "opinion center"; instead, it blends logic, memory, and emotion to build your viewpoint.)......... So, to be fair i would have to access tons of "info" from many viewpoints and then try to untangle the whole Kit and cabootle in this organ of mine to choose an opinion. For most people, i believe they gradually form very distinct, set in concrete patterns which lead to quick decisions on matters based on their "alliances" and simply resort to confirmation bias on basically every topic.

As for "Bad Science" ...."The main premise of the book Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is that society is constantly misled by flawed evidence, sensationalist media, and pseudoscience, and that the public needs critical thinking skills and a basic understanding of real science to protect themselves" (wikipedia)

All i can say about that synopsis is that the source is well-known to be biased . Maybe not from your point of view.... but most certainly by a very substantial number of others. And so it is with health matters, vaccines, "science" ........ The real joke is those who profess to know the "real truth" .... where others are just guilty of "misinformation" . I ask you and everyone " who is checking the fact checkers " ?

Once the people were influenced, and led, by 'mystic' men.

Then it was the war lords.

Then the church.

Then science.

Military again.

Then the experts. The science is settled; the BBC on the coming ice age. Building 7 has fallen; the same BBC on 9/11 day. I am the science; Fauci.

Now the internet.

54 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The flu is a natural body function.

Flu symptoms are not the actual influenza and are of course a natural body function. Influenza does exhibit symptoms in common with physical circumstances that are not caused by infectious agents. However, there is a virus that does cause the human body to exhibit the symptoms you refer to as 'natural body function'.

You nonsense is fading faster than flatulence in a hurricane. The bell has rung to end the round and all your bluffing has come to naught.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Taking the bolded parts.

I stand by this. “no virus has ever been found, isolated and purified.”

Where can I see the evidence of this event? ''viruses can be isolated,''

What evidence would you actually accept? If there is an experiment that satisfied my postulates then I'll certainly change my mind, and say so on AN. And the other platforms where I post. And apologise to my followers for being so dull.

You have now been given the answer several times.

You claim “no virus has ever been found, isolated and purified.” That is your positive scientific claim, so the burden of evidence applies to you too.

You then say you will change your mind if someone produces an experiment satisfying your “postulates”. Fine — state your postulates clearly. What exactly would an experiment have to demonstrate that would constitute evidence for you?

Because scientists routinely isolate viruses from biological samples, propagate them in susceptible cells, characterise them physically and genetically, and reproduce their biological effects. This is not one scientist, one laboratory or one government saying “trust us”. It is an enormous body of independently reproducible work.

If you reject all of that but cannot specify what evidence would change your mind, then this has ceased to be a scientific discussion.

I have no interest in arguing with a proposition that has been constructed so that no evidence can possibly falsify it.

And perhaps this is where we should leave it.

As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1816:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

Sometimes the most scientific response is to stop arguing with the unintelligible

2 hours ago, rumak said:

Just a quick look at your profile (replies to the never ending battles on this forum ) ........i can immediately see which side of the isle you pull from. Personally i am one of the few here who give my opinion , sometimes with an "explanation" .... but of course it is laughable to think that i am going to change someone's opinion that differs from mine. And yet, the dogs keep on tugging with more and more vigor, hoping to win the bone . I pride myself on figuring that out and refusing to participate no matter how hard someone tries to bully me into it .

On topics where health and "medicine" are concerned.... well, i am very much invested in the attempt to put all the "information" i can access into the organ i affectionately call "rumak's brain" (Opinions are formed in the brain through a complex network of cognitive processes, emotional responses, and physical neural connections. The brain does not have a single "opinion center"; instead, it blends logic, memory, and emotion to build your viewpoint.)......... So, to be fair i would have to access tons of "info" from many viewpoints and then try to untangle the whole Kit and cabootle in this organ of mine to choose an opinion. For most people, i believe they gradually form very distinct, set in concrete patterns which lead to quick decisions on matters based on their "alliances" and simply resort to confirmation bias on basically every topic.

As for "Bad Science" ...."The main premise of the book Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is that society is constantly misled by flawed evidence, sensationalist media, and pseudoscience, and that the public needs critical thinking skills and a basic understanding of real science to protect themselves" (wikipedia)

All i can say about that synopsis is that the source is well-known to be biased . Maybe not from your point of view.... but most certainly by a very substantial number of others. And so it is with health matters, vaccines, "science" ........ The real joke is those who profess to know the "real truth" .... where others are just guilty of "misinformation" . I ask you and everyone " who is checking the fact checkers " ?

So you haven't read it and prefer your own "tin hat" philosophies.

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So you haven't read it and prefer your own "tin hat" philosophies.

Thanks for proving my point .......

11 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

So when Zervos claimed "it was a good study" ..... you don't consider that a defense of the study?

I think you better stick to French.

He didn't claim it was good, he reluctantly admitted it was good. He would have much preferred to reject it. He was the project overseer and did not actually conduct it, which is why he was looking for flaws to serve as a basis for rejection, as is very common for him to do – he doesn't endorse material which is methodologically flawed. He would have much preferred that, but was forced to admit it was valid.

Edited Monday at 05:57 PM5 days by rattlesnake

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

So you haven't read it and prefer your own "tin hat" philosophies.

i originally had you pictured more as a pit bull , but the "tin hat" comment gave me a much kinder and more humorous view :

7 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

A load of old nonsense. That vid,

Flu is NOT a disease. It is not caused by a virus.

The flu is a natural body function.

doing what?

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

He didn't claim it was good, he reluctantly admitted it was good. He would have much preferred to reject it. He was the project overseer and did not actually conduct it, which is why he was looking for flaws to serve as a basis for rejection, as is very common for him to do – he doesn't endorse material which is methodologically flawed. He would have much preferred that, but was forced to admit it was valid.

Wow... you certainly have a rich fantasy life. Enjoy!

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

He didn't claim it was good, he reluctantly admitted it was good. He would have much preferred to reject it. He was the project overseer and did not actually conduct it, which is why he was looking for flaws to serve as a basis for rejection, as is very common for him to do – he doesn't endorse material which is methodologically flawed. He would have much preferred that, but was forced to admit it was valid.

Funny that you didn't ever mention his reluctance until now.... laughable.

36 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Funny that you didn't ever mention his reluctance until now.... laughable.

Keep digging that hole.

On 9/13/2026 at 6:12 PM, rattlesnake said:

He was stunned to see that the study actually showed higher rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated cohort… but as he has actual scientific integrity, he recognised it even if it wasn't what he wanted to see…