Settling the Biological Virus Debate

Here's an article, with an embedded video, that I think is quite interesting:

Runaway Virology – Marvin Wins In Court | drsambailey.com


Quoting from it:

**

May 5, 2023

I last interviewed Marvin Haberland in October 2022, when he was challenging a court fine in Germany. He had deliberately broken “corona” legislation to expose the fraudulent nature of virology. He argued that because virology does not follow the scientific method, any penalty notices issued under their Infectious Diseases legislation were illegal.

Marvin finally went to court on 26 April 2023. Listen to what happened and where this might go next as virology derails…

**
 
I have a lot of positions- I disagreed with 4 of yours in post #925, you'll have to be more specific in your question.
Your deflection would indicate you have no evidence and can't defend your positions.

Glad we agree on that.
Since some living creatures exist that can't be grown in a culture, any time someone requires that something be grown in a culture before accepting it exists is pseudo-science.
Here we disagree, but by all means, provide any evidence you have that these alleged biological viruses shouldn't be able to be grown in culture.
LOL. So I have to prove the negative? Pseudo-science is great, isn't it? You simply deny everything and don't support anything you do claim.

I have already presented the evidence and you agreed with it, then you turn around and deny it. Humans can't be grown in culture. Humans exist. Eagles can't be grown in culture, eagles exist. The list is rather long of living creatures that can't be grown in culture but we know exist. Since so many different living creatures exist that can't be grown in culture, growing something in culture is not required for a living creature to exist.
 
What actual evidence do you have to support your position?

I have a lot of positions- I disagreed with 4 of yours in post #925, you'll have to be more specific in your question.

Your deflection would indicate you have no evidence and can't defend your positions.

Glad you at least recognized that I have more than one position. Next step is getting specific about what positions you believe I have no evidence for.

Glad we agree on that.

Since some living creatures exist that can't be grown in a culture, any time someone requires that something be grown in a culture before accepting it exists is pseudo-science.

I believe only microbes can be grown in culture. Based on what I've seen, it's only been recently that some virologists have begun to admit that they haven't actually grown viruses in culture, despite claims to the contrary. Do you agree that no biological viruses have ever been proven to be truly isolated and grown in culture?


Here we disagree, but by all means, provide any evidence you have that these alleged biological viruses shouldn't be able to be grown in culture.

LOL. So I have to prove the negative?

You love bandying the word proof and its derivatives about. I wanted to know if you have any -evidence- that alleged biological viruses shouldn't be able to be grown in culture if they actually existed. I'm beginning to think that you don't.
 
No idea how you arrived at that conclusion. You also didn't answer my question.
I did. I gave an example of your faulty logic and using your logic proved you don't exist. Either you are unable to understand logic or you are lying.

First of all, even virologists have claimed that they can grow alleged biological viruses in culture. Are you admitting that they are all essentially liars?
Nice straw man you have there. Did you enjoy beating it up?
Because some viruses can be grown in cultures does not mean all viruses can be grown in cultures. And it certainly doesn't create a requirement that all viruses can be grown. If you accept that some viruses can be grown in culture then it defeats your arguments that no viruses exist. You don't get to have it both ways.

Let's give an example to show your logical errors again.
Because some humans can drink milk with no consequences is not evidence that no humans are lactose intolerant. Now we take your next idiotic leap. Because some humans can't drink milk it proves humans don't exist.
 
Bacteria and alleged biological viruses are both microbes, something that the other groups you bring up aren't. Again, if you have any evidence that biological viruses shouldn't be able to be cultured, by all means, present it.
Idiotic argument that ignores the fact that viruses are not bacteria. Viruses and humans are both considered living creatures. So shouldn't the same rules apply to them?
Because you set the line in one place doesn't make it true. It only shows you are conducting pseudo-science.
 
I believe only microbes can be grown in culture. Based on what I've seen, it's only been recently that some virologists have begun to admit that they haven't actually grown viruses in culture, despite claims to the contrary. Do you agree that no biological viruses have ever been proven to be truly isolated and grown in culture?
What you believe is not science. It is pseudo-science. Science is falsifiable.
I have shown you evidence of viruses being grown in culture, isolated and used to infect others and all you do is deny it.
I have asked you repeatedly to tell us how the Nobel committee was hoodwinked in order to give a Nobel prize for growing the polio virus and you have not presented any evidence of them being lied to. You can't explain what is in the photos I have shown of polio virus being isolated. You have not been able to falsify any of the actual science. All you have is "I believe." That isn't science. It is pseudo-science.



You love bandying the word proof and its derivatives about. I wanted to know if you have any -evidence- that alleged biological viruses shouldn't be able to be grown in culture if they actually existed. I'm beginning to think that you don't.
Asking me to prove the negative isn't science. It is pseudo-science.
What evidence do you have that humans can't be grown in a culture if they actually exist? Your arguments are becoming laughable at this point. You are spouting bullshit and trying to pretend it is rational thought.
 
A negative can not be falsified.

According to who?

So you admit you don't exist. Thanks for that.

No idea how you arrived at that conclusion. You also didn't answer my question.

I did.

Then point me to where you answered who is claiming that a negative can't be falsified.

First of all, even virologists have claimed that they can grow alleged biological viruses in culture. Are you admitting that they are all essentially liars?

Nice straw man you have there. Did you enjoy beating it up?
Because some viruses can be grown in cultures does not mean all viruses can be grown in cultures.

Ah, I didn't know you believed that only -some- viruses can be cultured. For the record, I don't believe there's solid evidence that any viruses have truly been cultured. The statement signed by the doctors in the opening post says the same.

And it certainly doesn't create a requirement that all viruses can be grown.

I think we should point something out- when it comes to microbes, "grown" essentially means to reproduce. If virologists can't show that an alleged virus can reproduce, the notion that they exist at all becomes tenuous.

If you accept that some viruses can be grown in culture then it defeats your arguments that no viruses exist. You don't get to have it both ways.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. I don't believe biological viruses exist, so ofcourse it'd be impossible for non existent things to be grown/shown to reproduce.
 
Bacteria and alleged biological viruses are both microbes, something that the other groups you bring up aren't. Again, if you have any evidence that biological viruses shouldn't be able to be cultured, by all means, present it.

Idiotic argument that ignores the fact that viruses are not bacteria.

No, it doesn't. I was just pointing out how bacteria and alleged biological viruses are similar.

Viruses and humans are both considered living creatures. So shouldn't the same rules apply to them?

No, because we talk about their reproduction differently sometimes. As I mentioned previously, when people talk of growing microbes in culture, what they -mean- is that they are reproducing them in a given place. All living things reproduce, whether or not they are parasitical in nature. If little or no evidence can be shown that an alleged biological creature reproduces, it calls into question that it's a biological creature at all.
 
Then point me to where you answered who is claiming that a negative can't be falsified.

What specific test can you use to falsify the claim something doesn't exist. In order for it not to be pseudo-science this test must be valid for everything that can be claimed to not exist.
Ah, I didn't know you believed that only -some- viruses can be cultured. For the record, I don't believe there's solid evidence that any viruses have truly been cultured. The statement signed by the doctors in the opening post says the same.
Pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. You don't believe but you haven't done and can't provide a valid test to falsify your belief.



I think we should point something out- when it comes to microbes, "grown" essentially means to reproduce. If virologists can't show that an alleged virus can reproduce, the notion that they exist at all becomes tenuous.

Explain why the Nobel Prize was given for growing polio viruses in a tissue culture since you claim it can't be done.
Oh, I certainly agree with that. I don't believe biological viruses exist, so ofcourse it'd be impossible for non existent things to be grown/shown to reproduce.
Explain why the Nobel Prize was given for growing polio viruses in a tissue culture since you claim it can't be done.
Explain why 40,000 people came down with polio symptoms after being given the Cutter polio virus which didn't properly kill the virus.

It is also impossible for some existent things to be grown in culture, humans, eagles, wombats, earthworms and a million other things.
 
No, it doesn't. I was just pointing out how bacteria and alleged biological viruses are similar.
Humans and bacteria are similar. Both use DNA to reproduce while a virus uses RNA. Your argument is idiotic since it is used the conclusion in the premise Viruses and Bacteria are similar so they should act the same. How do you know they are similar? You don't. You just "believe." That isn't science. It's pseudo-science.
No, because we talk about their reproduction differently sometimes. As I mentioned previously, when people talk of growing microbes in culture, what they -mean- is that they are reproducing them in a given place. All living things reproduce, whether or not they are parasitical in nature. If little or no evidence can be shown that an alleged biological creature reproduces, it calls into question that it's a biological creature at all.

We actually have quite a bit of evidence of viruses reproducing. You just want to deny it exists.
Explain why the Nobel Prize was given for growing polio viruses in a tissue culture since you claim it can't be done.
Explain why 40,000 people came down with polio symptoms after being given the Cutter polio virus which didn't properly kill the virus.
 
I believe only microbes can be grown in culture. Based on what I've seen, it's only been recently that some virologists have begun to admit that they haven't actually grown viruses in culture, despite claims to the contrary. Do you agree that no biological viruses have ever been proven to be truly isolated and grown in culture?

What you believe is not science. It is pseudo-science.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Science is falsifiable.

Agreed.

I have shown you evidence of viruses being grown in culture, isolated and used to infect others and all you do is deny it.

No, you've linked to an article that -claims- that viruses have been grown in culture. You haven't actually shown solid evidence that this occurred.

I have asked you repeatedly to tell us how the Nobel committee was hoodwinked in order to give a Nobel prize for growing the polio virus and you have not presented any evidence of them being lied to.

It's not just the Nobel committee that was hoodwinked. Most if not all of the doctors who came to realize that virology is built on a house of cards initially believed that biological viruses were real. It took a careful examination of the facts for them to realize otherwise. I think the most important point is the failure for biological viruses to ever be isolated. Failing isolation, it's impossible to ascertain whether there were any viruses to "grow" in the first place. (Former) Dr. Mark Bailey touches on this whole charade of viruses being grown in his essay A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition). Quoting from it:

**
It should be clear at this point that each coronavirus genome has been templated against other socalled genomes without the virologists demonstrating that any of the sequences come from a virus. It is thus instructive to go back to the purported first ever complete coronavirus genome to be published, which was the ‘Avian Infectious Bronchitis Virus’ (IBV) by Boursnell et al. in 1987,113 and subsequently used by others as one of the original templates. They did not sequence any postulated viral particles directly but used, “seventeen cDNA clones covering the 3ʹ-most 27,569 kb of the genome,” noting that the clones, ”have been derived from RNA isolated from gradientpurified virus of the Beaudette strain (Beaudette & Hudson, 1937; Brown & Boursnell, 1984).” The cited Brown & Boursnell paper states, “the preparation of cDNA clones has been previously described (Brown and Boursnell, 1984).” This subsequent citation is their publication titled, 114 “Avian infectious bronchitis virus genomic RNA contains sequence homologies at the intergenic boundaries”. In this paper they claim that the, “IBV strain Beaudette was grown in 11-day-old 115 embryonated eggs. Virions were isolated from allantoic fluid and purified by isopycnic116 centrifugation on sucrose gradients.” However, no evidence was provided in any of these papers that they: (a) had purified anything, let alone “virions”, in the form of confirmatory electron micrographs, or (b) performed valid control experiments. All we can see is that they assumed viruses were present in their culture mixture and after centrifugation claimed the detected RNA sequences were from these imagined viruses.

The original claim that they were dealing with a virus (IBV) dates back to the 1930s and was based on the same flawed conclusions drawn from the methodology employed in the 1911 Rous sarcoma “virus” experiments (see page 17). In the case of IBV, material was taken from diseased chickens, passed through Berkefeld bacterial filters and then introduced into the respiratory tracts of other chickens. On the basis that this could also make the recipient birds sick, it was declared that, 117 “these results demonstrate the disease is caused by a filterable virus.” However, at no time has any experiment demonstrated that an infectious particle is responsible for the toxic effects. In short, the subsequent “coronavirus” phylogenetic trees that have been created since the 1980s are not evidence of “evolving viruses,” they are evidence of a multi-level marketing scheme that has no established physical product.

The danger to humanity is that the putative coronavirus genomes that have been templated out of the virologists’ speculations are now used as templates to create and inject products into hapless recipients who were conned and gulled into believing that virology’s latest invention was real. That is, virology’s fictional genomic inventions have been relied upon to create wholly unnecessary medical and political interventions. The dangerous and highly experimental mRNA and nanolipid biotechnology has killed more people than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years, and we have only just begun counting.

**

You can't explain what is in the photos I have shown of polio virus being isolated.

I explained that there's no hard evidence that any of the photos you've shown me are of viruses. You don't seem to be concerned about this for some reason.


You love bandying the word proof and its derivatives about. I wanted to know if you have any -evidence- that alleged biological viruses shouldn't be able to be grown in culture if they actually existed. I'm beginning to think that you don't.

Asking me to prove the negative isn't science.

I've never asked you to prove anything that you didn't seem to think had already been proven. At this point, all I'm asking you if you have a shred of evidence that any alleged biological virus should have any reason for not being able to be grown in culture.

What evidence do you have that humans can't be grown in a culture if they actually exist?

Again, you seem to lack an understanding of what "grown in culture" means. It just means having microbes reproduce. There is certainly -plenty- of evidence that humans reproduce.
 
Last edited:
Then point me to where you answered who is claiming that a negative can't be falsified.

What specific test can you use to falsify the claim something doesn't exist.

The group of doctors referenced in the opening post outline a set of tests that could be done that could in theory provide evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

In order for it not to be pseudo-science this test must be valid for everything that can be claimed to not exist.

Please explain your logic here.

Oh, I certainly agree with that. I don't believe biological viruses exist, so ofcourse it'd be impossible for non existent things to be grown/shown to reproduce.

Explain why 40,000 people came down with polio symptoms after being given the Cutter polio virus which didn't properly kill the virus.

I believe all vaccines are toxic and that polio is caused by toxins. I'm sure you can work out what I think caused these 40,000 people who came down with polio symptoms after taking these polio "vaccines".
 
No, it doesn't. I was just pointing out how bacteria and alleged biological viruses are similar.

Humans and bacteria are similar.

In some ways sure, but humans can't be reproduce in "culture". To reproduce, a female human egg has to be fertlized by a male human sperm.

Your argument is idiotic since it is used the conclusion in the premise Viruses and Bacteria are similar so they should act the same. How do you know they are similar? You don't. You just "believe."

They are both microbes. If you can find any argument to explain why viruses can't be truly isolated and grown in culture just like their fellow microbes, bacteria, by all means let me know.

No, because we talk about their reproduction differently sometimes. As I mentioned previously, when people talk of growing microbes in culture, what they -mean- is that they are reproducing them in a given place. All living things reproduce, whether or not they are parasitical in nature. If little or no evidence can be shown that an alleged biological creature reproduces, it calls into question that it's a biological creature at all.

We actually have quite a bit of evidence of viruses reproducing.

It seems all the evidence you can provide is the fact that some Nobel Prize judges were hoodwinked into believing it happened. In fairness, a lot more people believed it too, including most if not all of the doctors referenced in the opening post of this thread at the time that this alleged covid pandemic started. But since then, they started looking into the evidence of the Cov 2 virus and viruses more generally and found that the evidence that any virus exists is severely wanting.
 
For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:

**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.

You have one doctor and that's what you base your decision on?
 
Is this Russian troll still posting bullshit? Why isn't he banned.? He is literally posting ONLY Russian disinformation.
 
For a while, I've been debating with a certain someone in another thread regarding whether or not biological viruses are real. The thread has gotten rather large and we've been talking about several things in it. I think it makes more sense to separate the discussion on viruses into a thread of its own and will attempt to respond to posts on the subject in other thread here as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the group of doctors and other professionals who have come to the conclusion that biological viruses aren't real, I invite you to take a look at the following 2 page statement from various doctors and other professionals who have signed off on a set of steps that could be taken to try to prove whether viruses exist once and for all. It's here:

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

I'll quote the first few paragraphs of the statement here:

**
July 14, 2022

Settling the Virus Debate

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1

It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

**

The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative.

You have one doctor and that's what you base your decision on?

Where did you get this notion that this initiative was based on the beliefs of a single doctor? The very text you quote ends with "The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative."

If you'd clicked through to the linked statement itself, you would have found the list of doctors and other professionals listed at the end of it.
 
Is this Russian troll still posting bullshit? Why isn't he banned.?

The only reason that -you're- not thread banned from this thread is because I started it before you started with comments like this. I've asked the Admins if they could please thread ban you from this thread as Damocles once did for me with a thread from Doc Dutch. We'll see what happens.
 
Where did you get this notion that this initiative was based on the beliefs of a single doctor? The very text you quote ends with "The statement then goes into a list of steps that would need to be taken in order to ascertain whether viruses are real and ends with a list of MDs and other professionals who have signed on to this initiative."

If you'd clicked through to the linked statement itself, you would have found the list of doctors and other professionals listed at the end of it.

There was no list of any doctors. If you are going to post, make it complete, or dont bother.
 
There was no list of any doctors. If you are going to post, make it complete, or dont bother.

I believe that my opening post was quite long enough with the quote of the linked article. I know forums that wouldn't have allowed me to quote as much as I did. At this point, it seems you're just trying to avoid the fact that what I said clearly pointed out that there was a list of doctors and other professionals who'd signed the quoted statement. If you'd like to see the names of the doctors and other professionals on the list, you're free to do so. In case you're still not sure where the link is, it's the only link that I posted in the opening post, with a name similar to this thread.
 
The group of doctors referenced in the opening post outline a set of tests that could be done that could in theory provide evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.



Please explain your logic here.



I believe all vaccines are toxic and that polio is caused by toxins. I'm sure you can work out what I think caused these 40,000 people who came down with polio symptoms after taking these polio "vaccines".

I have already shown that the scientists "tests" are pseudo-science. They require a procedure that can't be used for all living things. Since it can't be used for all living things it is pseudo-science to claim it must be met to prove that a living thing exists.
Until you know the characteristics of a living creature you can't claim it must meet the standards of another living creature to prove it exists. The test has to work for all living creatures to be valid as a starting point.
Humans can't be grown in culture. Humans can't be isolated from all other living creatures and survive. (We have a biome of bacteria that we need to survive.) Because living creatures exist that can't be isolated from all other such creatures and survive it is the height of pseudo-science to claim that something must be isolated to prove a living creature exists. The test set up by the idiotic doctors has been falsified and shown to not be a valid test for all living creatures. Since it is not valid for all living creatures it can't be used as the basis to decide something is alive or not.

One HUGE problem with your beliefs. Explain why 40,000 got sick from a vaccine where the virus had not been properly attenuated but over 100 million that took a vaccine where the virus was properly attenuated didn't get sick. This is another example of your practicing pseudo-science. You claim something and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. You did the same thing with DDT and polio. I showed that polio existed in African when DDT wasn't being used, vaccines were given, polio went away and then Africa started using DDT and polio didn't come back. You cherry pick one piece of data when you correlate DDT and polio in the US and then ignore all data where DDT doesn't correlate with polio. Not only are you doing pseudo-science you are making huge logical errors by assuming correlation is causation and then ignoring when there is no correlation which proves it cannot be causation.

On one hand, you have correlation but no evidence of causation and you ignore all instances where here is no correlation.
On the other hand, we have evidence of causation because we have a virus taken from sick people, grown in a culture, then the virus injected into other people and the people getting sick. (Hmm.. sounds like the process you are claiming has never been shown.)
 
Back
Top