I see!
Well if you are so concerned about scammers and conmen in medicine then we are on the same page! I am saying the whole notion of viruses is a scam nobody has bothered to check for validity.
Have you ever looked into Louis Pasteur or the history of virology?
Yes I have. Have you ever seen immune response play out in a Petri dish?
Well great, seems like you have zero issues with what you found in either Pasteur or the history of virology, which already shows we are of a different mindset.
How can you not take issue with it, especially if you call yourself a scientist?
I have not worked with petri dishes since my school days, though I still feel free to question - without being an "expert" - whether what you describe as an immune response might be a foregone conclusion on your and your colleagues' part. Which is the question on the table here - the inquiry into the merit of virology.
I know it's not chic to say so but specialization CAN make people blind and overly vested in the ghost they are chasing. Especially if the allegation that the entire field of study in question is up against IS that it is based on an unproven assumption everybody simply took as the truth without verifying it.
Of course it is TOTALLY possible I have no idea what I am talking about, and that you are totally correct! I can always be wrong and I don't mind finding that out! Precisely because I have no stake in the outcome, I just want to know and ask questions until I get satisfactory answers.
If you haven't blocked me by then I would love to hear your takes on the virology criticisms when that dub finally releases.
Thanks for your time.
I only block spammers, and I'm pretty comfortable saying you don't fall into that category.
My biggest take on virology criticism is much like my take on flat earthers... a lot of their major claim are just wrong. These groups hammer relentlessly at a few counter-intuitive truths, that are backed up by CENTURIES of individual experiments all over the globe, and claim erroneously that the evidence to refute them doesn't exist.
While I agree wholeheartedly that specialists will often get tunnel vision, and can often become religious in their beliefs, these people tend to be zealots more than scientists. Scientists want to know things, zealots want to be known.
The mechanisms by which bacteria, viruses, and other more novel pathogens operate are fairly well known at this point. It is also fairly well known that they alone are not responsible for all the various forms of dis-ease that people experience. Your response to these invaders has much more to do with whether or not you get sick than the pathogens themselves, and immune responses are just as individual as personalities.
Knowing the truth can be HARD, even if you do your own research and experiments. Humans are emotional creatures, and that interferes. We are also prone to extrapolating patterns that do not necessarily exist. The whole point of experimental science is to provide a body of evidence that is not influenced by our own irrationality.
it seems we definitely share the ideal of the scientific method! it just seems we came to vastly different conclusions on the specifics.
either because we looked at different pieces of evidence, or we presupposed and assumed too much of what we set out to prove. as i said i feel comfortable saying i don't know, and i am always keen to change my mind when somebody can make a good case rather than using logical fallacies.
although it took months and even years of study i did end up finding the flaws in both popular cosmologies to my satisfaction, the one you are defending and the one you are criticizing. both cosmologies are wrong, and any scientist worth his salt would have gotten to the same conclusion had he only put in the work.
maybe you were tricked by one of the many false honeypot idiots out there giving giving "the flat earthers" a bad name on purpose. many if not most who call themselves flat earthers have made terrible arguments and false statements - and many of them on purpose. in order to dissuade and confuse people like you.
the concept of controlled opposition is as valid as it always has been and as long as people fall for it humanity will be divided.
so either you know something i don't - which is ENTIRELY possible (!!!!) or you have tried to appeal to a reality frame example you have obviously NOT studied enough yourself in order to convince someone who HAS studied it at length. to then somehow take that inference and make your case about the topic at hand here - which is quite weak were that to be the case. come to think of it i should check your text for AI now.
Alright you passed, great! Ah enough of the cosmology, i am just saying none of us know what's going on here and some arguments suffice to some, and to other people those same arguments do not.
That all said.... please do know that I appreciate your comment and to have access to someone who not only shares the scientific method ideal but who seems to mean it, coming from the more "mainstream" point of view.
if i feel the "pathogenic viruses exist" camp does not respond to the criticisms coming from that dub i am working on, i may be able to use your best criticisms of it to see the logical flaw in my own thinking and therefore I will have greatly benefitted from your expertise and knowledge, allowing me to change my mind and to not claim any longer that pathogenic viruses do not exist.
I simply like to find the catch in things.
sorry dude, I will stop spamming you now,
blessings