Are Viruses Real?

[Aether Witch]

"you pulled this out of context"

I mean, you've cherrypicked many things I could point out already (I only read the first post you made), I'm just not feeling as excruciatingly autistic as you are right now, and going sentence by sentence dissecting everything I disagree with or that doesn't make sense... the very idea is giving me a headache.

But A for effort, I guess, and I hope (do I actually wish that kind of experience on others?) someone reads the rest of your posts and gets some enjoyment out of them.

 

[Tablet County]

I mean, you've cherrypicked many things I could point out already (I only read the first post you made), I'm just not feeling as excruciatingly autistic as you are right now, and going sentence by sentence dissecting everything I disagree with or that doesn't make sense... the very idea is giving me a headache.

But A for effort, I guess, and I hope (do I actually wish that kind of experience on others?) someone reads the rest of your posts and gets some enjoyment out of them.

Thank you for your passive aggressive support.

 

[Cheeseknife]

I mean, you've cherrypicked many things I could point out already (I only read the first post you made), I'm just not feeling as excruciatingly autistic as you are right now, and going sentence by sentence dissecting everything I disagree with or that doesn't make sense... the very idea is giving me a headache.

But A for effort, I guess, and I hope (do I actually wish that kind of experience on others?) someone reads the rest of your posts and gets some enjoyment out of them.

He basically entered the thread all but announcing he was in bad faith. What's even funnier is I think most of his posts are dedicated to this thread now which has led me to assume he's someone's burner account.

Other than that, the cherry picking is also something the anime pedophile pfp guy was doing too. Zero actual engagement with the actual user, and just attacking the words themselves in smarmy fashion while ignoring what was actually being said.

Overall I think exactly two other people actually started to engage and quit short of out-of-hand dismissal of relevant information (I.E. "I don't have time to read/watch.")

At least @Agenda Poster has been thoughtful.

 

[Tablet County]

He basically entered the thread all but announcing he was in bad faith. What's even funnier is I think most of his posts are dedicated to this thread now which has led me to assume he's someone's burner account.

It's true. My real account is @Bryan Dunn.
Imagine hating someone so much that you can't accept that they have a life outside of this thread.

 

[Aether Witch]

Also, probably my last post here for the night (and who knows for how long), some people argue that this:

Peer-review is important even in an autistic setting.

is everything wrong with science nowadays, and I tend to agree. The reasoning behind it makes complete sense to me:

https://odysee.com/@JVTruth2:0/denis-g-rancourt-peer-review:6

https://odysee.com/@MoonMaidnMusings:d/the-fallacies-in-the-peer-review-process:5

(And yes, I obviously know this isn't a real peer-review process, but I think it's very relevant).

He basically entered the thread all but announcing he was in bad faith.

That's why it's pretty hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. He did come in with bad faith and smear tactics, but if he actually is genuinely invested in the topic, then I'm the first one to welcome the shift. Only he knows whether he's being sincere or not.

 

[Colloid]

s everything wrong with science nowadays, and I tend to agree. The reasoning behind it makes complete sense to me:
https://odysee.com/@JVTruth2:0/denis-g-rancourt-peer-review:6 https://odysee.com/@MoonMaidnMusings:d/the-fallacies-in-the-peer-review-process:5
(And yes, I obviously know this isn't a real peer-review process, but I think it's very relevant).

So you don't trust the process of peer review but will refer to online video essays with no standard for publication or any unique data just fine as long as the people in them say what you want to hear? lmao

 

[Tablet County]

That's why it's pretty hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. He did come in with bad faith and smear tactics, but if he actually is genuinely invested in the topic, then I'm the first one to welcome the shift. Only he knows whether he's being sincere or not.

I just hate self-righteous individuals and enjoy making fun of them. Just because I think you and cheddargoblin are grandiose niggerfaggots doesn't mean I can't approach the ideas you espouse with as open a mind as my bias and lack of education allows.

 

[Aether Witch]

So you don't trust the process of peer review

No.

but will refer to online video essays with no standard for publication or any unique data just fine as long as the people in them say what you want to hear?

If by "with no standard for publication" you mean that they're able to freely share their thoughts without barriers, then yes. I really don't know what you mean by "any unique data". They're obviously sharing their unique perspectives and those perspectives happen to make logical sense.

as long as the people in them say what you want to hear?

No, as long as their thoughts are coherent, logical and based in common sense. I didn't want to hear anything against the peer review process. I actually thought the peer review process was extremely important, because that's what I'd been told, and at the time that's what made the most sense to me. I was able to shift my perspective because this new idea just made more sense, I merely hadn't considered it before, I didn't ever think there was a problem with the peer review process.

lmao

lMaO indeed, you cunt.

 

[Colloid]

If by "with no standard for publication" you mean that they're able to freely share their thoughts without barriers, then yes. I really don't know what you mean by "any unique data". They're obviously sharing their unique perspectives and those perspectives happen to make logical sense.

I mean figures, statistical analyses, biological assays, structural analyses, etc. Those are the meat of any investigation and they drive the discussion of the research article. One of the most concerning things about A Farewell to Virology on a fundamental level is that the Baileys provide absolutely zero new data to support their argument. All of their figures are instead taken from other papers for sake of criticism instead. This is a massive red flag, arguably the biggest one to this whole paper.

This is super fucking weird because you need some kind of analysis or observation from an experiment to argue anything in a meaningful way that moves the field forward. If you go to Pubmed right now and look at any random article then I can assure you that most if not all of their figures will feature novel data that was produced for that investigation, accompanied with a clear protocol in the methods section to repeat it yourself.

Meanwhile A Farewell to Virology has nothing new to say. No data to suggest that plaque assay doesn't work the way people see it working in their own studies, no proposed alternative model for how techniques like transduction and transfection can work if our understanding of viruses is supposedly flawed, no structural data that characterizes the alleged debris that we've mistaken for viruses this whole time.

This paper has nothing new to show.

 

[Aether Witch]

I mean figures, statistical analyses, biological assays, structural analyses, etc. Those are the meat of any investigation and they drive the discussion of the research article. One of the most concerning things about A Farewell to Virology on a fundamental level is that the Baileys provide absolutely zero new data to support their argument. All of their figures are instead taken from other papers for sake of criticism instead. This is a massive red flag, arguably the biggest one to this whole paper.

This is super fucking weird because you need some kind of analysis or observation from an experiment to argue anything in a meaningful way that moves the field forward. If you go to Pubmed right now and look at any random article then I can assure you that most if not all of their figures will feature novel data that was produced for that investigation, accompanied with a clear protocol in the methods section to repeat it yourself.

Meanwhile A Farewell to Virology has nothing new to say. No data to suggest that plaque assay doesn't work the way people see it working in their own studies, no proposed alternative model for how techniques like transduction and transfection can work if our understanding of viruses is supposedly flawed, no structural data that characterizes the alleged debris that we've mistaken for viruses this whole time.

This paper has nothing new to show.

I wish I could make this shit up. I stop taking you in any serious capacity the minute you somehow manage to conflate what I was saying about the peer review process, which had nothing to do with A Farewell to Virology, with A Farewell to Virology. Do you have any actual interest in an honest debate? Your responses show you don't.

Also, no, you don't need new data, or new experiments to be able to point out that a certain experiment or methodology already being conducted is flawed. (Also, pointing out how other people have already done experiments disproving X or Y, like they do when they reference Stefan Lanka, doesn't mean they have to do the experiments Stefan Lanka did.) Anyway, I...


Goodnight.

 

[Saddam Hussain Obama]

no

 

[Colloid]

Do you have any actual interest in an honest debate?

Do you? I'm not the one slinging petty insults here chief.

Also, no, you don't need new data, or new experiments to be able to point out that a certain experiment or methodology already being conducted is flawed.

Yeah you do. It's really not hard to produce data that demonstrates this either when the things that you think are happening are indeed actually happening. The reason the Baileys can't is simply because they're wrong.

 

[Cheeseknife]

All of their figures are instead taken from other papers for sake of criticism instead. This is a massive red flag, arguably the biggest one to this whole paper.

WTF? References are now red flags?

I'm not the one slinging petty insults here chief.

Didn't you refuse to watch a video or something because of some stupid reason?

It's really not hard to produce data that demonstrates this either when the things that you think are happening are indeed actually happening.

So do it. Not hard, right?

 

[Tablet County]

Also, not sure what the skull pfp faggot is on about since I never refer to any group as "cultist."

"I didn't use this specific word which means I did not say this thing. Also I am still too angry to address the person I am speaking to directly."

...you're dealing with Science as religion and not science (lower case "s") as a tool of discovery...

People don't even want to think about the fact that we have any number of medical practices today that are wholly and utterly based on Science as dogma rather than science as a tool.

Now, let me ask you, have you--or anyone--directly observed SARS-CoV-2 interacting with the human body in such a way as to cause the illnesses it is alleged to cause? Because I can guarantee that the vast majority of people just take it on faith that the virus exists and does what it does. Same goes with the vaccine--most who took it, did so based on faith in Science.

This is how religion works.

Science, as a modern religion, is not tool. It's dogma.

It's pure dogma.

I realize of course that there are those who trust whatever the scientific community says because it makes them feel smart, but characterizing "the vast majority" of people as being seduced by the dogma of science? Sounds like you're calling everyone who disagrees with you a cultist.
Of course, I mean "cultist" in the modern colloquial sense, which is completely detached from its etymologic root.

That's a modern colloquialism that completely ignores the etymology of the word.

Thank you for sharing this completely irrelevant piece of information.

But, damn, if I was someone else trying to prove I said something, I'd probably be smart and actually pull up the quote. Too bad KF doesn't let you do that, right?

Ha ha ha. What a story, Mark.

no

Welp, that's settled boys. Let's all go home.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Was the pandemic even here, though? And where did the flu go?

Regardless, it another aspect about the level of backlash Aether Witch and I get here. What I mean is, I don't think either of us really gain or lose anything for being right or wrong about this. We just believe what we want to believe.

The most striking thing to me is how dogmatic some people are if you simply don't buy into commonly accepted beliefs. It really just makes me that much more determined to double down.

You get backlash because you and your sock account are projecting faggots who can't actually respond to criticism of your beliefs. I gave you question after question you just dance around like your boyfriend @Aether Witch twerking alongside his favorite drag queens.

He basically entered the thread all but announcing he was in bad faith. What's even funnier is I think most of his posts are dedicated to this thread now which has led me to assume he's someone's burner account.

Other than that, the cherry picking is also something the anime pedophile pfp guy was doing too. Zero actual engagement with the actual user, and just attacking the words themselves in smarmy fashion while ignoring what was actually being said.

I mean that's the core of your argument. "Viruses don't exist because these super special geniuses found out the REAL definition of 'isolated' THEY don't want you to know about.

 

[Aether Witch]

I realize of course that there are those who trust whatever the scientific community says because it makes them feel smart, but characterizing "the vast majority" of people as being seduced by the dogma of science? Sounds like you're calling everyone who disagrees with you a cultist.
Of course, I mean "cultist" in the modern colloquial sense, which is completely detached from its etymologic root.

Way to misrepresent what someone has said to fit your desired interpretation of what they "said". You can be a real slimy, slippery eel sometimes, @Tablet County . This is why I don't really trust you, you seem to start engaging in good faith and then you pull this sort of stunt.

@Cheeseknife wasn't calling the vast majority of people cultists, the way you're making it out to be, as in active participants in a cult. He was merely talking about the very thing Dr. Denis Rancourt talks about in the 6 minute clip I shared. Science has become The Science, and most people aren't even aware of this, they're not active participants.
They just follow along the paths that have been carved out as acceptable for them, like they do in most areas of life. Most people don't question why they do the things they do.
If science was taught, we'd be critical thinkers. Most of us aren't. Most people on this planet got injected with poison, many of them willingly, probably the majority. To act as if those people haven't been "seduced by the dogma of science" (The Science) is either delusional or dishonest.

You get backlash because you and your sock account are projecting faggots who can't actually respond to criticism of your beliefs. I gave you question after question you just dance around like your boyfriend @Aether Witch twerking alongside his favorite drag queens.

Wait, am I a sock account, or am I his boyfriend?

By the way, I don't know about him, but I don't engage with your questions/assertions/remarks because you're not here to debate in good faith, and you never were. There's 17 pages in this thread, and you were there since day 1 engaging in bad faith, I've already responded to you multiple times, and you still haven't contributed anything of substance to the conversation. I'd rather keep ignoring you. Now you can go back to posting songs about AIDS (your imaginary friend) on my profile, they're very entertaining for me and a great outlet for your frustrations in life, so win-win.

Yeah you do. It's really not hard to produce data that demonstrates this either when the things that you think are happening are indeed actually happening. The reason the Baileys can't is simply because they're wrong.

What you're implying here is that you can prove that something doesn't exist. Do you actually think that?

By the way, for the sake of clarity, whenever I've said "viruses don't exist", or "the coof doesn't exist", or "AIDS doesn't exist", what I mean is they haven't been proved to exist. I don't think it's possible to prove that something doesn't exist.

That's why the whole "they should be able to prove that X doesn't exist" argument is moronic. Because you can point out how the methodologies used to assert that X exists aren't legitimate, you can point how and why the experiments performed don't actually serve as evidence of X, but you'll never be able to prove that X doesn't exist. That's why the burden of proof is always on those claiming that X or Y exist. And given the history of the field, I'm pretty certain viruses have always been a figment of virologists' imaginations. In that sense they're real, they created this mythological organism that now exists, even if only in the minds of the collective.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

By the way, I don't know about him, but I don't engage with your questions/assertions/remarks because you're not here to debate in good faith, and you never were. There's 17 pages in this thread, and you were there since day 1 engaging in bad faith, I've already responded to you multiple times, and you still haven't contributed anything of substance to the conversation. I'd rather keep ignoring you. Now you can go back to posting songs about AIDS (your imaginary friend) on my profile, they're very entertaining for me and a great outlet for your frustrations in life, so win-win.

I didn't know "laughing at and disproving your stupid assertions" counts as "engaging in bad faith." You're free to keep pretending you're a critical thinker while you ignore actual counterarguments to your loony ideas which seem to be a neurological complication of AIDS. But I'd love for you to actually answer with a response that isn't some silly word game aimed at misrepresenting how science actually works. Maybe you were too busy picking fruit with your fellow illegals growing up to go to school as a kid, otherwise you'd know what the "scientific method" is, and how viruses are the best theory to fit the evidence we observe like "gee, why has literally nobody died of smallpox in 40 years right after they vaccinated a billion people?"

 

[Cheeseknife]

Most people don't question why they do the things they do.

The best way I've heard it put is that thousands of people willingly board airplanes every day. They trust this huge hunk of metal will somehow get them from point A to point B. Nowadays only a handful of those people actually has the capacity to tell you how an airplane even works. Even so, their ignorance is not a deterrent.

I don't think it's possible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Science can only produce what you put into it. If you don't put anything into it, you can't produce anything.

People say that diamonds are the hardest substance on earth. What they don't include is the diamonds are the hardest known substance on earth. Since there's large portions of the earth yet uncovered by mankind (like the core, for instance) we do not truly know if diamonds are the hardest substance on earth. Always and forever, there will be unknowns. And if one admits he cannot know everything, then what does he really know?

In that sense they're real, they created this mythological organism that now exists, even if only in the minds of the collective.

Just like, in medieval times, people thought it was humors that needed to bled from the body. Trepanning was used to relieve headaches. We look back at this and say, "Ridiculous! What were they thinking?!"

We don't step back for a moment and wonder what we're doing today that, years and years from now, people will read about medicine in the early 21st century history books and say, "Ridiculous! What were they thinking?!"

 

[Colloid]

Do you actually think that?

In this case it’s very possible. All I’m asking is for an alternative reason why the things revolving around viruses work the way they do if they supposedly don’t exist. If viruses don’t exist in the way that we think they do then the techniques and medicines we designed around exploiting them simply wouldn’t work because then there really isn’t a vehicle for moving and delivering genes in those technologies. It’s really not that complicated to understand. You can believe whatever you want about how the field is a sham but belief alone doesn’t treat diseases or solve problems, and that’s the biggest issue with this side of the argument really. You and the Baileys haven’t done any actual work or investigation to back this proposal up. Despite my best efforts I couldn’t find one scrap of original novel data to back up the idea that viruses don’t really exist. If you guys want anyone to really take this seriously then you gotta have something concrete to back this up. Just criticizing established figures doesn’t cut it.

 

[draggs]

In this case it’s very possible. All I’m asking is for an alternative reason why the things revolving around viruses work the way they do if they supposedly don’t exist. If viruses don’t exist in the way that we think they do then the techniques and medicines we designed around exploiting them simply wouldn’t work because then there really isn’t a vehicle for moving and delivering genes in those technologies. It’s really not that complicated to understand. You can believe whatever you want about how the field is a sham but belief alone doesn’t treat diseases or solve problems, and that’s the biggest issue with this side of the argument really. You and the Baileys haven’t done any actual work or investigation to back this proposal up. Despite my best efforts I couldn’t find one scrap of original novel data to back up the idea that viruses don’t really exist. If you guys want anyone to really take this seriously then you gotta have something concrete to back this up. Just criticizing established figures doesn’t cut it.

I already tried this and they pussied out in favor of sperging at other people