“Science is real” has become an ideological bumper sticker—an appeal to authority designed to shut down debate, not open it. It’s about affirming institutional legitimacy.
But “Viruses don’t exist,” while sometimes delivered in a similarly blunt fashion, is a provocative claim made in opposition to that very authority. It doesn’t seek to fortify the dominant narrative—it seeks to expose its methodological flaws.
The problem isn’t that the two phrases are rhetorically equivalent; it’s that both can be used to end inquiry instead of begin it.
— “Science is real” implies: “You’re not allowed to question.”
— “Viruses don’t exist” can imply: “There’s nothing left to talk about.”
But the better version of the latter is something like:
“Virology has never demonstrated the existence of viruses using the scientific method.”
That’s not a slogan—it’s an invitation to look at methods, not models.
So yes, the delivery matters. But the epistemological posture behind each phrase is not the same.
I understand now that you’re pointing to a rhetorical similarity—how both “Science is real” and “Viruses don’t exist” can function as slogans that signal tribal identity or shut down inquiry.
That said, I think the equivalence misses something crucial: the asymmetry of power.
“Science is real” was used as a top-down mantra—enforced by media, schools, tech platforms, and governments—to silence dissent. “Viruses don’t exist,” however bluntly it’s sometimes delivered, is a bottom-up reaction to decades of unexamined assumptions in virology and public health.
So while both phrases can be misused rhetorically, only one is part of the official narrative. The other challenges it—and that matters.
“Virology has never demonstrated the existence of viruses using the scientific method.”
Covid was not caused by a “mild” virus. It was a psyop. They took a normal, range of symptoms called cold/flu. Added a layer of power of suggestion(daily, using dozen of symptoms), iced with a thick layer of fear. No early treatment(they kept the primary care person out in the periphery), told you you could only go to the hospital when your lips were blue( too late now). Once you got there(with no one to advocate for you) they pushed you over the edge with ventilators and later with Remdesvir.
The thing with COVID is that taking the 'viruses are real' position doesn't inherently mean the predominant covid assertions were correct For example, there is a position that coronaviruses exist in a continuous quasi-swarm and that while they may elicit Iillness, cannot pandemic due to lack of RNA replication fidelity and cannot be novel due to widespread existence and homologous proteins. Sars cov2 as some unique, distinct pathogen may be incorrect but that may not apply to other entities also called viruses. Wild RNA sequences either exist or they don't. If they do , to what extent can they be measured or fully sequenced? Then there's the question of contagion..
I think there's a lot of wordplay and deliberate murkiness put forth by virologists and maybe even their opponents, and without clarification of the degree of provability, precise shared definitions and scientific rigor, this debate is not gonna go very far.
"The thing with COVID is that taking the 'viruses are real' position doesn't inherently mean the predominant covid assertions wee correct."
Agree
"I think there's a lot of wordplay and deliberate murkiness put forth by virologists and maybe even their opponents, and without clarification of the degree of provability, precise shared definitions and scientific rigor, this debate is not gonna go very far."
Excellent thought provoking question - thanks for asking it.
What does real mean? Is love real? Is destiny real? What does it mean to say that a thing exists? Does beauty exist? Do ideas exist? Does time exist? Or is reality a function of our perceiving mind? Does reality have objective existence external to our perception of it? If every human were suddenly killed by an asteroid strike would the universe continue to exist? Who would be left to know it?
These questions are the sorts of things philosophers have debated since ancient times,
dormant through what Durant termed the age of faith from the fall of Rome to the renaissance and rediscovered leading up the domination of science as the only form of knowledge that is now allowed to be real.
We are encouraged to believe that science has proven beyond doubt that infectious disease is real, is externally caused, is caused by an objectively existing thing called a virus. The existence of this thing is said to be proven by experiments where this thing, they claim, has been "isolated".
I personally find no convincing evidence of viral isolation, no definition of a virus, no picture of a virus, no history of its evolution, no agreement on even whether a virus is alive or dead, no proof that infectious disease is "caused" by a virus. In the absence of this evidence I do not believe in the objective existence of viruses in the real world. But I do believe in the existence of a virus as an idea that has real effects in the world. For example just as a human could be scared to death by a belief in ghosts they could be scared into illness and death from fear of the idea of a virus. This would be an example of psychological causation as opposed to a "mechanism of action".
The scientific tyranny we now live under has become a worse dogma than that of the Catholic church. Far worse in fact as Catholic dogma never advocated mass drugging. Among many other egregious errors it dogmatically asserts that viruses exist despite good evidence to the contrary. It is used to censor voices that disagree. It promotes universal life long drug taking for the public good at the public expense. It denies, ignores and gaslights the injured.
What happened in 2020 and 2021 was, I think, predictable. Once science had hijacked all human knowledge and held it hostage for a century it was not going to be long before its owners would turn it into a method for increasing their power and wealth a thousand fold.
Covid, for me, was a science justified dogmatic fiction whose true purpose was the increase in power and wealth of elites, all over the world, in preparation for the coming transition to machine based intelligence and social control and the world wars that transition implies. Only this explains why the entire world including implacable enemies behaved as if covid was real. I doubt many of the elites took the vaccines or believe in viruses or any of it. They are smart enough to know that all social control is based on necessary fictions, and always has been, and the science of medicine is simply a small part of that overall human social system.
Thanks for raising these interesting and pivotal questions.
Disagree. But I would also say that it is more scientifically accurate to say that “Viruses have never been proven to exist”.
It took me 25 years to go from first hearing that there were some serious issues with virology (Stefan Lanka in 1996), to becoming sufficiently motivated to investigate this claim, which I did from early 2020. It still took me several months to really get my head around the case against virology as presented by Lanka, et al. But I can now say with confidence that it’s one of those things that once you get it, there is no going back.
I confess that for a while it became difficult for me to listen to some people whose work I greatly admire and have no doubts about their sincerity, but who persist in talking about ‘viruses’ as though they are real. The only way I can describe it is it’s like having to deal with adults who still think that Father Christmas exists. Nevertheless, in absolutely no way do I mean that to sound unkind or patronising because I fully acknowledge the time and energy it took me to properly understand this subject.
It's been profoundly disappointing to witness the ‘no virus’ position being increasingly misrepresented and dismissed out of hand as a ‘psyop’ by some but equally, I am not at all surprised that this is the case. There are some really bad actors claiming to represent the ‘no-viruses’ position and I think it is highly likely that there is an orchestrated psyop to try and discredit the work of Stefan Lanka et, al. But equally, I think that there are other reasons why some people on the side of ‘no-virus’ are behaving in an exceptionally aggressive and divisive way. Some I think are still extremely traumatised from the covid event and are fearful that something like this could happen again if they don’t ‘wake people up’. Others just appear to me to be bigoted assholes who think they are cleverer than everyone else.
Appreciate your work Jessica; keep a level head, keep on asking questions and keep it polite. I think it’s the best that we can do in this crazy world we find ourselves in.
Fixed drug eruption. Look it up on images.google.com and examine case study literature. I'm not going to be explicit. A "fixed drug eruption" occurring on someone's skin (especially, say, before the skin started decaying) vigorously rubbing against someone else's skin, would almost definitely appear to cause a "contagious" disease (e.g., poison leaching out of your skin rubbing against someone else's skin and conferring similar symptoms).
But that doesn't mean it's actually contagious - in the sense of one person transforming another person into a vector of disease that amplifies inside you allowing you to infect hundreds who infect hundreds upon millions. It just means the transfer of toxin from one to another.
No one would benefit power or money from saying that the mRNA is dangerous. That's often how you figure out what is true and what is a lie. Also, my Dr, Ana Mihalcea, showed me my blood under a dark field microscope. There were little nano bots running around assembling structures. So I saw it with my own eyes.
The benefit is you believe the fear and you seek treatment for something that has never scientifically been proven - that is power and money, is it not?
Dr Ana, showed you, what she believes to be true, but unfortunately she hasn’t looked deeper to realise the foundational fraud that she is basing her beliefs upon.
If she had told you they were microscopic fragments of charged metals coming together or the formation of sodium chloride crystals, you would still believe her, wouldn’t you?
All because you saw it with your own eyes and she told you what to believe, not because it is true, but because that’s what she “believes” to be true.
It is time for all of us to stop outsourcing our knowledge and look for ourselves. This is our chance for a new beginning.
The fear narratives are generally the ones that turn out to be false, because fear = power and control.
the little moving about things have been seen since the 70s in blood. You can find films online .. the self assembly stuff, I dont know. May be molds ? I’m doubting the mrna can do what it says on the tin, at least.
Gravity? Viruses do exist although they are sometimes blamed for causing more harm than they actually do. COVID was largely a psyop over a relatively benign virus meant to terrify the population into submitting to lockdowns, masking, testing and vaccination with much harm being caused by the treatment protocols, denial of therapeutic drugs to those at high risk and the vaccines themselves.
I think the vaccines cause even more harm than the virus, but both the virus and the vaccines are bioweapons. It's probably the spike protein that causes so much harm.
I used to think it was relatively benign until I got it the second time and developed myocarditis . I think it's a frankenvirus, created to cause complete mayhem. Do I think there's a solution like a vaccine ? No.
Nobody should say viruses don’t exist just has nobody should say space badgers don’t exist.
You cannot assert the no existence of something - even when it is entirely a fictional concept like viruses or unicorns.
Nobody should say viruses don’t exist just as nobody should say space badges don’t exist. You cannot assert the no existence of something even when it is entirely fictional .
The correct statement is
Viruses are fictional.
Who knows if one day a piece of evidence may show up for this albeit crazy fairytale.
Science is real is an odd statement
Science is just the process of carefully splitting pink stuff and green stuff.
Science is distinguishing what is real from what is not.
One day the two colour protocol will be understood as the foundation of science / sanity. My name may not be involved and different terms may be used. But science is in a complete mess because it does not rest on the clear separation of data and model.
For example, viruses are 100% pink stuff, they exist only in stories, with not one single aspect of them corresponding to anything in physical reality.
Bacteria are real things that exist in the real world.
If the objective of either is to shut down dissent, then I agree.
If it will be used to silence me, not so much.
I don't know if viruses exist, just that as of yet, have not been proven to exist using the scientific method as stated elsewhere. And just like I would go through many studies on masking to determine if masks work, I have gone through some of the history of viruses, thinking "surely this will prove that viruses exist" only to proven wrong. The "science is in" on viruses has been in for over a century now and yet no one can give us the definitive proof of it?
Today, for instance, someone told me that the 3M Aura was designed to protect against viruses. Someone sent along a data overview sheet to prove it. So I clicked on the link that was also given to the actual data sheet, and searched for the term "virus" which was never mentioned at all. You would think that a respirator designed to protect against viruses would have the word "virus" somewhere on the data sheet.
For some real fun, ask Grok and Chat GPT why that is. Also ask them why something that will protect from .3 micron particles with work against .07-09. micron particles.
What doesn´t seem to exist (and I´ve looked real hard) is a scientist with extensive knowledge in the field, willing to take on skeptical questions head on, and thus prove that they do exist. If anybody has a link, please forward.
Viruses exist as much as evil tiny invisible disease-causing leprechauns exist. One is an insane hypothesis that has been repeatedly disproven and has no logical or coherently rational basis for its existence, the other is a rational statement that allows for a coherent explanation of observed phenomenon.
The rational coherent statement I am referring to, of course, is the existence of tiny invisible leprechauns.
Once you claim "viruses" exist you are in a world of hurt: why do they not spread in the bars and strip clubs that were the first businesses to open? Why do people with the most exposure via occupational hazard (waiters/waitresses, nurses, strippers, doctors, etc.) not "get it" the most? Why has every contagion experiment ever conducted always failed? Etc.
Tiny evil invisible leprechauns is the scientific answer: the leprechauns enjoy a pint as much as the next guy, so they don't infect people drinking alcohol [lack of bar patrons and employees getting sick with 99.9% certainty SOLVED]. They are lecherous, so they enjoy visiting strip clubs [lack of strippers and strip club patrons getting sick with 99.9% certainty SOLVED]. They aren't very bright, so the appearance of a mask or plastic face shield "blocks them from killing people" [etc] They are evil and murderous, but they enjoy playing pranks on planet Earth [which is why some municipalities had +700% fatality rates but others had -40% fatality rates during the pandemic - it was all a big joke]. Since they are smart, they can "hide their contagiousness" when scientists "try to do their experiments" and then only "be contagious" when they are "operating in nature" [contagion experiment failures, explained]. Although the leprechauns can kill people via heart attacks or kidney failure or whatever, they *ALWAYS* enter through the nose leaving copious leprechaun droppings in the process ["cases" tracked via "nasal swabs" symptoms-be-damned, explained].
The leprechaun hypothesis simply makes sense. The virus hypothesis leaves you scrambling with tons of ad-hoc and post-hoc explanations and excuses. How do you detect these leprechauns? Computer algorithms jury-rigging millions of purported DNA fragments together like a child randomly assembling Lego pieces into a vague leprechaun shape. It could be a leprechaun, it could be a virus, it could be unicorn, it could be an artifact of a mountain of flawed scientific premises.
But leprechauns allows us to explain the observed phenomena with infinitely greater accuracy than "inanimate immobile non-sentient bundle of proteins [virus]".
Comments now closed.
My likes should not be interpreted as agreement but as "thanks for responding."
Disagree—though I see what you’re getting at.
“Science is real” has become an ideological bumper sticker—an appeal to authority designed to shut down debate, not open it. It’s about affirming institutional legitimacy.
But “Viruses don’t exist,” while sometimes delivered in a similarly blunt fashion, is a provocative claim made in opposition to that very authority. It doesn’t seek to fortify the dominant narrative—it seeks to expose its methodological flaws.
The problem isn’t that the two phrases are rhetorically equivalent; it’s that both can be used to end inquiry instead of begin it.
— “Science is real” implies: “You’re not allowed to question.”
— “Viruses don’t exist” can imply: “There’s nothing left to talk about.”
But the better version of the latter is something like:
“Virology has never demonstrated the existence of viruses using the scientific method.”
That’s not a slogan—it’s an invitation to look at methods, not models.
So yes, the delivery matters. But the epistemological posture behind each phrase is not the same.
https://substack.com/@jessicahockett/note/c-135356836?r=jjay2&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Thanks for elaborating, Jessica.
I understand now that you’re pointing to a rhetorical similarity—how both “Science is real” and “Viruses don’t exist” can function as slogans that signal tribal identity or shut down inquiry.
That said, I think the equivalence misses something crucial: the asymmetry of power.
“Science is real” was used as a top-down mantra—enforced by media, schools, tech platforms, and governments—to silence dissent. “Viruses don’t exist,” however bluntly it’s sometimes delivered, is a bottom-up reaction to decades of unexamined assumptions in virology and public health.
So while both phrases can be misused rhetorically, only one is part of the official narrative. The other challenges it—and that matters.
Science is whatever scientists are paid to say!!!
I agree with Turfseer.
“Virology has never demonstrated the existence of viruses using the scientific method.”
Covid was not caused by a “mild” virus. It was a psyop. They took a normal, range of symptoms called cold/flu. Added a layer of power of suggestion(daily, using dozen of symptoms), iced with a thick layer of fear. No early treatment(they kept the primary care person out in the periphery), told you you could only go to the hospital when your lips were blue( too late now). Once you got there(with no one to advocate for you) they pushed you over the edge with ventilators and later with Remdesvir.
Read A Farwell to Virology by Drs. Mark and Sam Bailey. Found it for free on dokumen.pub. A Farewell to Virology 0473736675, 9780473736675
I have
The thing with COVID is that taking the 'viruses are real' position doesn't inherently mean the predominant covid assertions were correct For example, there is a position that coronaviruses exist in a continuous quasi-swarm and that while they may elicit Iillness, cannot pandemic due to lack of RNA replication fidelity and cannot be novel due to widespread existence and homologous proteins. Sars cov2 as some unique, distinct pathogen may be incorrect but that may not apply to other entities also called viruses. Wild RNA sequences either exist or they don't. If they do , to what extent can they be measured or fully sequenced? Then there's the question of contagion..
I think there's a lot of wordplay and deliberate murkiness put forth by virologists and maybe even their opponents, and without clarification of the degree of provability, precise shared definitions and scientific rigor, this debate is not gonna go very far.
"The thing with COVID is that taking the 'viruses are real' position doesn't inherently mean the predominant covid assertions wee correct."
Agree
"I think there's a lot of wordplay and deliberate murkiness put forth by virologists and maybe even their opponents, and without clarification of the degree of provability, precise shared definitions and scientific rigor, this debate is not gonna go very far."
Agree
Excellent thought provoking question - thanks for asking it.
What does real mean? Is love real? Is destiny real? What does it mean to say that a thing exists? Does beauty exist? Do ideas exist? Does time exist? Or is reality a function of our perceiving mind? Does reality have objective existence external to our perception of it? If every human were suddenly killed by an asteroid strike would the universe continue to exist? Who would be left to know it?
These questions are the sorts of things philosophers have debated since ancient times,
dormant through what Durant termed the age of faith from the fall of Rome to the renaissance and rediscovered leading up the domination of science as the only form of knowledge that is now allowed to be real.
We are encouraged to believe that science has proven beyond doubt that infectious disease is real, is externally caused, is caused by an objectively existing thing called a virus. The existence of this thing is said to be proven by experiments where this thing, they claim, has been "isolated".
I personally find no convincing evidence of viral isolation, no definition of a virus, no picture of a virus, no history of its evolution, no agreement on even whether a virus is alive or dead, no proof that infectious disease is "caused" by a virus. In the absence of this evidence I do not believe in the objective existence of viruses in the real world. But I do believe in the existence of a virus as an idea that has real effects in the world. For example just as a human could be scared to death by a belief in ghosts they could be scared into illness and death from fear of the idea of a virus. This would be an example of psychological causation as opposed to a "mechanism of action".
The scientific tyranny we now live under has become a worse dogma than that of the Catholic church. Far worse in fact as Catholic dogma never advocated mass drugging. Among many other egregious errors it dogmatically asserts that viruses exist despite good evidence to the contrary. It is used to censor voices that disagree. It promotes universal life long drug taking for the public good at the public expense. It denies, ignores and gaslights the injured.
What happened in 2020 and 2021 was, I think, predictable. Once science had hijacked all human knowledge and held it hostage for a century it was not going to be long before its owners would turn it into a method for increasing their power and wealth a thousand fold.
Covid, for me, was a science justified dogmatic fiction whose true purpose was the increase in power and wealth of elites, all over the world, in preparation for the coming transition to machine based intelligence and social control and the world wars that transition implies. Only this explains why the entire world including implacable enemies behaved as if covid was real. I doubt many of the elites took the vaccines or believe in viruses or any of it. They are smart enough to know that all social control is based on necessary fictions, and always has been, and the science of medicine is simply a small part of that overall human social system.
Thanks for raising these interesting and pivotal questions.
You're welcome and thank you.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-most-basic-questions
Thanks for the link.
Disagree. But I would also say that it is more scientifically accurate to say that “Viruses have never been proven to exist”.
It took me 25 years to go from first hearing that there were some serious issues with virology (Stefan Lanka in 1996), to becoming sufficiently motivated to investigate this claim, which I did from early 2020. It still took me several months to really get my head around the case against virology as presented by Lanka, et al. But I can now say with confidence that it’s one of those things that once you get it, there is no going back.
I confess that for a while it became difficult for me to listen to some people whose work I greatly admire and have no doubts about their sincerity, but who persist in talking about ‘viruses’ as though they are real. The only way I can describe it is it’s like having to deal with adults who still think that Father Christmas exists. Nevertheless, in absolutely no way do I mean that to sound unkind or patronising because I fully acknowledge the time and energy it took me to properly understand this subject.
It's been profoundly disappointing to witness the ‘no virus’ position being increasingly misrepresented and dismissed out of hand as a ‘psyop’ by some but equally, I am not at all surprised that this is the case. There are some really bad actors claiming to represent the ‘no-viruses’ position and I think it is highly likely that there is an orchestrated psyop to try and discredit the work of Stefan Lanka et, al. But equally, I think that there are other reasons why some people on the side of ‘no-virus’ are behaving in an exceptionally aggressive and divisive way. Some I think are still extremely traumatised from the covid event and are fearful that something like this could happen again if they don’t ‘wake people up’. Others just appear to me to be bigoted assholes who think they are cleverer than everyone else.
Appreciate your work Jessica; keep a level head, keep on asking questions and keep it polite. I think it’s the best that we can do in this crazy world we find ourselves in.
Viruses do not and can not exist.
I am leaning towards, "viruses don't exist". Toxins, especially the manmade kind are EVERYWHERE. That is why people get sick.
Do you think these toxins are contagious?
No, but they could appear to be.
Just as rats dying in a basement to rat poison could all appear to be dying of a plague.
Fixed drug eruption. Look it up on images.google.com and examine case study literature. I'm not going to be explicit. A "fixed drug eruption" occurring on someone's skin (especially, say, before the skin started decaying) vigorously rubbing against someone else's skin, would almost definitely appear to cause a "contagious" disease (e.g., poison leaching out of your skin rubbing against someone else's skin and conferring similar symptoms).
But that doesn't mean it's actually contagious - in the sense of one person transforming another person into a vector of disease that amplifies inside you allowing you to infect hundreds who infect hundreds upon millions. It just means the transfer of toxin from one to another.
The mRNA is. It is self-assembling. And now they're approving a self replicating version. mRNA is the biggest danger to the survival of humanity.
Could this be another lie, just like the virus one?
No one would benefit power or money from saying that the mRNA is dangerous. That's often how you figure out what is true and what is a lie. Also, my Dr, Ana Mihalcea, showed me my blood under a dark field microscope. There were little nano bots running around assembling structures. So I saw it with my own eyes.
The benefit is you believe the fear and you seek treatment for something that has never scientifically been proven - that is power and money, is it not?
Dr Ana, showed you, what she believes to be true, but unfortunately she hasn’t looked deeper to realise the foundational fraud that she is basing her beliefs upon.
If she had told you they were microscopic fragments of charged metals coming together or the formation of sodium chloride crystals, you would still believe her, wouldn’t you?
All because you saw it with your own eyes and she told you what to believe, not because it is true, but because that’s what she “believes” to be true.
It is time for all of us to stop outsourcing our knowledge and look for ourselves. This is our chance for a new beginning.
The fear narratives are generally the ones that turn out to be false, because fear = power and control.
"The fear narratives are generally the ones that turn out to be false, because fear = power and control."
Agree.
the little moving about things have been seen since the 70s in blood. You can find films online .. the self assembly stuff, I dont know. May be molds ? I’m doubting the mrna can do what it says on the tin, at least.
Gravity? Viruses do exist although they are sometimes blamed for causing more harm than they actually do. COVID was largely a psyop over a relatively benign virus meant to terrify the population into submitting to lockdowns, masking, testing and vaccination with much harm being caused by the treatment protocols, denial of therapeutic drugs to those at high risk and the vaccines themselves.
https://pete843.substack.com/p/refuting-virus-deniers
I think the vaccines cause even more harm than the virus, but both the virus and the vaccines are bioweapons. It's probably the spike protein that causes so much harm.
I used to think it was relatively benign until I got it the second time and developed myocarditis . I think it's a frankenvirus, created to cause complete mayhem. Do I think there's a solution like a vaccine ? No.
Nobody should say viruses don’t exist just has nobody should say space badgers don’t exist.
You cannot assert the no existence of something - even when it is entirely a fictional concept like viruses or unicorns.
Nobody should say viruses don’t exist just as nobody should say space badges don’t exist. You cannot assert the no existence of something even when it is entirely fictional .
The correct statement is
Viruses are fictional.
Who knows if one day a piece of evidence may show up for this albeit crazy fairytale.
Science is real is an odd statement
Science is just the process of carefully splitting pink stuff and green stuff.
Science is distinguishing what is real from what is not.
One day the two colour protocol will be understood as the foundation of science / sanity. My name may not be involved and different terms may be used. But science is in a complete mess because it does not rest on the clear separation of data and model.
https://open.substack.com/pub/beyondcertainty/p/science-the-avoidance-of-delusion
For example, viruses are 100% pink stuff, they exist only in stories, with not one single aspect of them corresponding to anything in physical reality.
Bacteria are real things that exist in the real world.
https://open.substack.com/pub/beyondcertainty/p/never-pretend-to-know-what-you-dont
.
An aside, when you asked to name something real that can't be seen under a microscope, immediately I thought of Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
"Very small rocks."
😂
If the objective of either is to shut down dissent, then I agree.
If it will be used to silence me, not so much.
I don't know if viruses exist, just that as of yet, have not been proven to exist using the scientific method as stated elsewhere. And just like I would go through many studies on masking to determine if masks work, I have gone through some of the history of viruses, thinking "surely this will prove that viruses exist" only to proven wrong. The "science is in" on viruses has been in for over a century now and yet no one can give us the definitive proof of it?
Today, for instance, someone told me that the 3M Aura was designed to protect against viruses. Someone sent along a data overview sheet to prove it. So I clicked on the link that was also given to the actual data sheet, and searched for the term "virus" which was never mentioned at all. You would think that a respirator designed to protect against viruses would have the word "virus" somewhere on the data sheet.
For some real fun, ask Grok and Chat GPT why that is. Also ask them why something that will protect from .3 micron particles with work against .07-09. micron particles.
Truth exists. Evil exists. Love exists. God exists.
I do not agree that they are equivalent. One statement is general and vague, and the other is a hypothesis that can be tested or investigated
And here is me mocking that first statement the other day: https://substack.com/@sanefrancisco/note/c-134671299
I say similar things when I pass that sign.
What doesn´t seem to exist (and I´ve looked real hard) is a scientist with extensive knowledge in the field, willing to take on skeptical questions head on, and thus prove that they do exist. If anybody has a link, please forward.
I don't believe in them as currently described.
6 experiments for the flu failed to show transmission.
'common cold unit' 1946 to 1989 failed to show transmission.
A paper that I believe said that 175 couples one who had HIV but no transmission detected over a 10 year period.
Maybe they do exist. Maybe they only affect certain people. Then again they are not viruses by the definition given.
Finally using data from Fan Wu et al I believe no one can get the same sequence they published as part of the paper for COVID in Feb - April 2020.
Viruses exist as much as evil tiny invisible disease-causing leprechauns exist. One is an insane hypothesis that has been repeatedly disproven and has no logical or coherently rational basis for its existence, the other is a rational statement that allows for a coherent explanation of observed phenomenon.
The rational coherent statement I am referring to, of course, is the existence of tiny invisible leprechauns.
Once you claim "viruses" exist you are in a world of hurt: why do they not spread in the bars and strip clubs that were the first businesses to open? Why do people with the most exposure via occupational hazard (waiters/waitresses, nurses, strippers, doctors, etc.) not "get it" the most? Why has every contagion experiment ever conducted always failed? Etc.
Tiny evil invisible leprechauns is the scientific answer: the leprechauns enjoy a pint as much as the next guy, so they don't infect people drinking alcohol [lack of bar patrons and employees getting sick with 99.9% certainty SOLVED]. They are lecherous, so they enjoy visiting strip clubs [lack of strippers and strip club patrons getting sick with 99.9% certainty SOLVED]. They aren't very bright, so the appearance of a mask or plastic face shield "blocks them from killing people" [etc] They are evil and murderous, but they enjoy playing pranks on planet Earth [which is why some municipalities had +700% fatality rates but others had -40% fatality rates during the pandemic - it was all a big joke]. Since they are smart, they can "hide their contagiousness" when scientists "try to do their experiments" and then only "be contagious" when they are "operating in nature" [contagion experiment failures, explained]. Although the leprechauns can kill people via heart attacks or kidney failure or whatever, they *ALWAYS* enter through the nose leaving copious leprechaun droppings in the process ["cases" tracked via "nasal swabs" symptoms-be-damned, explained].
The leprechaun hypothesis simply makes sense. The virus hypothesis leaves you scrambling with tons of ad-hoc and post-hoc explanations and excuses. How do you detect these leprechauns? Computer algorithms jury-rigging millions of purported DNA fragments together like a child randomly assembling Lego pieces into a vague leprechaun shape. It could be a leprechaun, it could be a virus, it could be unicorn, it could be an artifact of a mountain of flawed scientific premises.
But leprechauns allows us to explain the observed phenomena with infinitely greater accuracy than "inanimate immobile non-sentient bundle of proteins [virus]".