Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Into the Night]

Yeah. An idea in science is a hypothesis. The theory is developed by observations, measurements and experiments. Can the same be true for any version of god?

It works for the theory of viruses.

WRONG. A hypothesis stems from a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates.
A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That is, it must be testable to try to break the theory (the null hypothesis). That test must be specific, practical to conduct, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is falsified.

Falsifying a theory utterly destroys it. Nothing replaces it.

A theory can come from anywhere. It can come in a dream, by observation of phenomena, by the consequences of falsifying a theory, by mathematical manipulation, by logical manipulation, or even from watching an episode of Sponge Bob.
If the theory is falsifiable and can withstand tests designed to destroy it, it is automatically part of the body of science.

Science is atheistic. It does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply does not go there.

 

[Into the Night]

I'd think so.



A good point. In the case of alleged viruses, some doctors have come to believe that they are in fact exosomes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)

As an aside, I think your animated cat is pretty cute . I've been living with my father for a while. We started with 4 cats, but one of them had kittens, so we now have 8 .

An exosomes are a method for cells to communicate. A virus isn't a cell.

 

[AProudLefty]

What unit is this measurement in?

Your μpenis.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I suspect you chose the metaphor of unicorns because I've used it before myself. I certainly acknowledge that simply because anxiety disorder only came out as a diagnosis in the 1860s doesn't mean that telegraph lines had to be the cause. Nevertheless, it certainly suggests that it may have been the primary cause, or at least one of the causes.

It suggests no such thing. There was a war in the 1860s. There were probably over 1000 things invented and put into use in that time period. Claiming one of them is the cause without actual evidence shows you have no critical thinking skills. Any one of those many things could have been the cause and none of them could have been the cause. As I already pointed out hysteria was known to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks but it didn't make it into the medical literature until the 1800's. Making it into the medical literature is not proof that it didn't exist prior to being in the literature.

Anxiety disorder is just a type of hysteria

I chose unicorns because it is more real than your claims tend to be.

Agreed, but it's certainly -possible- that it wasn't described in the medical literature because it didn't exist in the past.

Because something is "possible" doesn't make it likely or even the best choice. It is possible you could have unicorns flying out of your butt every day. However that is not a reason to accept that to be likely. It appears you are not familiar with Occam's razor. You should look it up and then start to use it every morning.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You saying that it contains no science doesn't make it so.



Repeating the same links over and over again isn't going to persuade me. We need to start discussing the evidence that's -within- linked articles. I've begun to do that when it comes to Iain Davis' article.

ROFLMAO. So you prefer to ignore actual science and rely on an idiotic opinion. I think that says it all.
My links refute the bullshit in Iain Davis' article. Show how the science I posted is wrong. Davis claims they haven't been able to isolate a virus. I gave you multiple scientific articles published in scientific papers outlining how to isolate and sequence the virus.

Proof that Davis is wrong when he claims the virus hasn't been isolated.

Evidence of the covid virus being isolated and sequenced.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC703e6342/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...98743X20304274
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/
https://link.springer.com/article/10...96-020-03899-4

Would you care to discuss how Davis is wrong or not?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

First of all, when I said that I think we can all agree that the sun exists, I meant the participants in this thread. As to what we should dedicate our time on, that's up to each of us. I personally think there's more than enough evidence that the sun exists, and I think it's unlikely that I'd spend much time if any trying to persuade someone that it does in fact exist.

I am not saying I believe the sun exists or not. I am simply pointing out that some have presented evidence that it doesn't exist. Since some believe it doesn't exist, it is incumbent on you to prove them wrong or accept they are correct.

The fact that you are willing to spend so much time arguing that viruses don't exist shows you to be a troll or an idiot. Which is it?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed.



I disagree.

Since you disagree, explain how viruses could have been isolated and sequenced over a million times?
Occam's razor would say that the reason multiple labs have been able to isolate and sequence viruses over a million times and those sequenced viruses have been associated with specific symptoms and forms of transfer that are particular to each virus. The fact that you disagree shows you can't think clearly or are a troll.

Here is a database that contains the sequences of over a million viruses that have been sequenced by labs around the world.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/

I have thousands of people saying they sequenced viruses using the methods listed in some of these scientific articles.

Directions of how to isolate a virus and sequence it's RNA
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682219300728
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2016.182
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709572/
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-017-0741-5
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027805
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.01360-14
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502977/[/QUOTE]


What evidence do you have other than your belief that those people that signed that document have knowledge on the subject? What scientific papers have they published? What scientific papers have the linked to?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Pretty sure you know I was referring to your assertion, not any made by Iain Davis.



Did you read Iain Davis' article in its entirety, as I did? It's more than long enough in my view. His main focus is on the Cov 2 virus. I'll quote 2 passages below that I think are particularly relevant:

**
The Wuhan scientists developed their genetic amplification assays from “sequence information” because there was no isolated, purified sample of the so called SARS-CoV-2 virus. They also showed electron microscope images of the newly discovered virions (the spiky protein ball containing the viral RNA.)

However, such protein structures are not unique. They look just like other round vesicles, such as endocytic vesicles and exosomes.

View attachment 24139

Virologists claim that it is not possible to “isolate” a virus because they only replicate inside host cells. They add that Koch’s postulates do not apply because they relate to bacteria (which are living organisms). Instead, virologists observe the virus’ cytopathogenic effects (CPE), causing cell mutation and degradation, in cell cultures.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian


Further in, he has this to say on the alleged sequencing of the Cov 2 virus:

**
The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome (MN908947.1 ). This has been updated many times. However, MN908947.1 was the first genetic sequence describing the alleged COVID 19 etiologic agent (SARS-CoV-2).

All subsequent claims, tests, treatments, statistics, vaccine development and resultant policies are based upon this sequence. If the tests for this novel virus don’t identify anything capable of causing illness in human beings, the whole COVID 19 narrative is nothing but a charade.

The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Davis' failure to account for the multitude of labs that have also sequenced the virus since then shows that his argument and yours is a narrow attempt to ignore the evidence.

Let's look at this claim -

If the tests for this novel virus don’t identify anything capable of causing illness in human beings, the whole COVID 19 narrative is nothing but a charade.

This statement by Davis is the charade. If something causes illness then it causes illness. Failure to identify how it does so is not evidence it doesn't cause illness. Why would you rely on a logical fallacy for your argument? Why does Davis rely on a logical fallacy?

Whether or not the Chinese were able to isolate the virus on Jan 7th and sequence it is not relevant to the argument of whether it exists or not. Another logical fallacy.

 

[Scott]

Can you prove that any microbe seen under an electron microscope is actually a biological virus?

RQAA.

Does that stand for Repeated Question, Already Answered? If so, could you at least link to your previous answer?

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

I'm guessing you are referring to the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Quoting Wikipedia's introduction to it:

**
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
**

Not the argument from ignorance fallacy. Wikipedia is once again wrong. An argument from ignorance fallacy is a set error: ?!A->!A(). It is the inverse of a compositional error.

Can you link to a source that defines an argument from ignorance fallacy the way you do?

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me. It is too often incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong. They do not define logic or any axiom of logic.

Wikipedia is frequently my go to source, as it is frequently accepted in discussion circles as being a good starting point. Don't get me wrong, I have frequently disagreed with Wikipedia myself, and when that happens, I'll look for other sources, or sometimes the sources of Wikipedia itself, which don't always agree with the article itself. As I mentioned above, if you believe there is a better definition of an Argumenty from Ignorance on the internet, by all means link to it.

I have never claimed that I can prove that viruses don't exist.

Yes you did. Don't try to deny your own posts. ANYONE can go back and look for themselves.

They can, but that doesn't mean that your assertion is true. Being the author, I think more people would trust me on what I myself have said.

You and others here, however, have claimed that viruses do exist

They do.

Claiming they exist is not evidence that they exist.

and seem to be suggesting that this is true so long as I can't prove that they don't exist.

Word stuffing.

No, it's setting up what I say next...

Sounds like an Argument from Ignorance to me.

It's not. Wikipedia is wrong once again.

You may contend this to be the case, but you have yet to show evidence for this assertion.

Saying the virus exists doesn't make it so.

Viruses exist by definition.

I'm sure many religions would love it if they could just say that and everyone would therefore believe in their God.

Proof by identity.

I did some internet searches online to see if I could find a definition for your "Proof by identity". The closest thing I got was the blockchain consensus proof -of- identity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_identity_(blockchain_consensus)

It applies for cryptos, not for other concepts as far as I can tell. We're not talking about cryptos here.

As to Iain Davis' article, I think at this point it might be a good idea to quote some of it, as I think it can do a better job of explaining the flaws in the Cov 2 virus narrative than I can...

Cut and pasting is mindless. You have no mind of your own.

Believe it or not, it took me some effort to copy and paste here. Now, I can certainly agree that some copy and pastes are a waste of time, but I certainly don't agree with you in this case. Anyway, I see you've responded to the first part of my copy and paste, let's get to that...

**
The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome (MN908947.1 ). This has been updated many times. However, MN908947.1 was the first genetic sequence describing the alleged COVID 19 etiologic agent (SARS-CoV-2).
**

They are not the only ones to sequence this virus.

Iain Davis never claims they are the only ones to claim they have sequenced the virus. He says they are the -first-, however, and that all subsequent alleged assemblies are based on it. He also makes it clear that the way in which it was allegedly assembled was essentially seeing a bunch of building blocks and having a computer figure out how to assemble it. I had also quoted that part, but will quote again as they used a term that you may not have been familiar with:

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

Note the bit about de novo assembly. Iain helpfully includes a link to what the term means.

**
All subsequent claims, tests, treatments, statistics, vaccine development and resultant policies are based upon this sequence.
**

WRONG.
Subsequent claims are based on politics, not any virus.
Tests are based in antibodies, not the virus itself, but the body's response to the presence of the virus.
Treatments from Pfizer and J&J cause covid19 infection. They do not prevent it. Each 'booster' shot does the same thing.

We actually agree here to some extent. Iain has simply come to the conclusion that evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists as anything other than a computer creating a model out of building blocks found in samples is lacking and has come to believe that the virus itself may not even exist. In essence, he came to the same conclusion that the group of doctors and other professionals came to in the 2 page statement I referenced in the opening post for this thread, but he generally confines himself to the Cov 2 virus.

**
If the tests for this novel virus don’t identify anything capable of causing illness in human beings, the whole COVID 19 narrative is nothing but a charade.

They do. From here, you are making a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

I'm not the one claiming that viruses exist because they... exist? We'll see if you can better explain your "proof by identity" statement.

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

So the WHO lied. What else is new?

We can certainly agree here .

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

No, you cannot use the Guardian as a reference with me either. Same problem as Wikipedia.

I have on occassion used The Guardian as a source, but not this time. The article is from Off Guardian. Here's the text on their about page:

**
OffGuardian was launched in February 2015 and takes its name from the fact its founders had all been censored on and/or banned from the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ sections. Our editors & admins are based in the US, UK & Europe.

OffG is dedicated to open discourse and free expression, and will often host articles on both sides of any particular issue. Unless stated otherwise all opinions reflect the views of the author, not the site or its editors.
**

Source:
https://off-guardian.org/#site-info

Well, since I don't believe a Cov 2 virus exists, I can certainly agree that it hasn't killed anyone.

It doesn't matter what you believe. The virus exists.

Now where would we be if we -both- said things like that ? In any case, this thread is dedicated to people expressing their opinion on whether or not Cov 2 virus, or any other alleged virus exists, so you're good on the first part. It's the second part, the evidence, that we need to focus on.

NONE of the viruses from the Covid/SARS series of viruses kill. This one seems mildest of all of them so far discovered.

As far as beliefs go, I prefer yours to most others- an alleged mild virus is certainly a lot closer to no virus at all then a deadly killer. Alright, I'll stop there for now, you get into another very large issue in the next part, think a new post would be good for that...

 

[Scott]

Again, I'd have to disagree on this bit about the vaccines making Cov 2 viruses, as I don't believe they exist at all, but I certainly believe that all the Covid vaccines I've seen are toxic and should not be injected into anyone.

What is the toxin?

Toxins, plural, and it's not limited to Covid vaccines. Here's an article on the subject:

Toxins In Vaccines — Is There Cause For Concern? | myhdiet.com

There's also plenty of evidence that the Covid vaccines have been fairly harmful, even from official sources:
CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines via FOIA | dailyclout.io

 

[Scott]

Mandating any vaccine or treatment against covid19 produces Paradox V:
1. I get 'vaccinated' to protect myself from covid19.
2. I demand you get 'vaccinated' because my 'vaccine' doesn't work.

I certainly agree that the logic here is incredibly twisted.

It is not logic. It is a paradox. Arguing it is irrational.

I can go for irrational here too .

I certainly agree with that as well, although I believe the logic for them is that masks are more meant to protect others than to protect oneself. It's not an argument I agree with.

This is simply the first corollary of Paradox M. If you are not sick, why are you wearing a mask???!?

I believe their logic is that you may still be spreading covid even if you show no outward symptoms. Again, it's not logic I agree with, as you know I don't believe the Cov 2 virus even exists, just providing the logic I've seen used.

I certainly agree that masks can build up nasty stuff. I generally used reusable cotton masks when I had to, and felt I had to wash them every few days or I'd sneeze in them.

Cotton masks build up significant bacteria and fungi in just a couple of hours. Wearing them longer than that is NOT recommended. You don't need to sneeze into the mask for this to happen. Fungi and respiratory bacteriological infections are no joke.

If I could get away with it, I wouldn't wear them anywhere, but some government buildings here in Mexico still require them, so I wear them there.

We at least agree on the fraud part .

I suppose there is at least that.

Indeed

 

[Into the Night]

Does that stand for Repeated Question, Already Answered? If so, could you at least link to your previous answer?

Go look it up. RQAA.

Can you link to a source that defines an argument from ignorance fallacy the way you do?

The world is not Holy Links. False authority fallacy. RQAA.

Wikipedia is frequently my go to source,

No wonder you are so illiterate.

as it is frequently accepted in discussion circles as being a good starting point.

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me. Wikipedia is not God.

Don't get me wrong, I have frequently disagreed with Wikipedia myself, and when that happens, I'll look for other sources, or sometimes the sources of Wikipedia itself, which don't always agree with the article itself.

Paradox.

As I mentioned above, if you believe there is a better definition of an Argumenty from Ignorance on the internet, by all means link to it.

RQAA.

They can, but that doesn't mean that your assertion is true. Being the author, I think more people would trust me on what I myself have said.

A virus exists. Proof by identity.

Claiming they exist is not evidence that they exist.

No evidence is needed. A virus exists by definition. Proof by identity.

No, it's setting up what I say next...

You may contend this to be the case, but you have yet to show evidence for this assertion.

Lie.

I'm sure many religions would love it if they could just say that and everyone would therefore believe in their God.

A virus is not God. False equivalence fallacy.

I did some internet searches online to see if I could find a definition for your "Proof by identity". The closest thing I got was the blockchain consensus proof -of- identity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_identity_(blockchain_consensus)

It applies for cryptos, not for other concepts as far as I can tell. We're not talking about cryptos here.

Too bad. Logic is not defined by the internet.

Believe it or not, it took me some effort to copy and paste here.

So you work hard at being mindless. Gotit.

Now, I can certainly agree that some copy and pastes are a waste of time, but I certainly don't agree with you in this case. Anyway, I see you've responded to the first part of my copy and paste, let's get to that...

Iain Davis never claims they are the only ones to claim they have sequenced the virus. He says they are the -first-, however, and that all subsequent alleged assemblies are based on it. He also makes it clear that the way in which it was allegedly assembled was essentially seeing a bunch of building blocks and having a computer figure out how to assemble it. I had also quoted that part, but will quote again as they used a term that you may not have been familiar with:
**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Source:
COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud | Off Guardian

Special pleading fallacy. Fixation.

Note the bit about de novo assembly. Iain helpfully includes a link to what the term means.

We actually agree here to some extent. Iain has simply come to the conclusion that evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists as anything other than a computer creating a model out of building blocks found in samples is lacking and has come to believe that the virus itself may not even exist. In essence, he came to the same conclusion that the group of doctors and other professionals came to in the 2 page statement I referenced in the opening post for this thread, but he generally confines himself to the Cov 2 virus.

Straw man fallacy.

I'm not the one claiming that viruses exist because they... exist? We'll see if you can better explain your "proof by identity" statement.

RQAA.

We can certainly agree here .

No. We can't.

I have on occassion used The Guardian as a source, but not this time. The article is from Off Guardian. Here's the text on their about page:

**
OffGuardian was launched in February 2015 and takes its name from the fact its founders had all been censored on and/or banned from the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ sections. Our editors & admins are based in the US, UK & Europe.

OffG is dedicated to open discourse and free expression, and will often host articles on both sides of any particular issue. Unless stated otherwise all opinions reflect the views of the author, not the site or its editors.
**

Source:
https://off-guardian.org/#site-info

Attempted justification of false authority.

Now where would we be if we -both- said things like that ? In any case, this thread is dedicated to people expressing their opinion on whether or not Cov 2 virus, or any other alleged virus exists, so you're good on the first part. It's the second part, the evidence, that we need to focus on.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Toxins, plural, and it's not limited to Covid vaccines. Here's an article on the subject:

Toxins In Vaccines — Is There Cause For Concern? | myhdiet.com

There's also plenty of evidence that the Covid vaccines have been fairly harmful, even from official sources:
CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines via FOIA | dailyclout.io

Can't list it, eh?

 

[Scott]

A lot of people believe God is a lot more than an idea. As a Pantheist, I define God as everything that is. By that definition, studying anything would be studying a part of God.

True. You can measure the energy from nature. It is a living ecosystem.

And yet the Christian God can be applied to that as well. Christians always tell me to look around me as if it's a proof of God's existence.

Such an argument is a circular argument fallacy. It is fundamentalism. It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist, or whether no god or gods exist.
If, however, one simply tells you to look at the evidence of a god or gods, or the evidence that there is no god or gods, that is simply a circular argument, not a fallacy. The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

The moment someone tries to use that evidence as a proof, the circular argument fallacy occurs.

I really find this subject interesting, but we've clearly gone far off the subject of this thread, so I decided to respond to your comment in a new thread I made for this subject:

The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them, Post #2

 

[Scott]

I think we can agree that it all depends on the definition of God. I don't know anyone who would deny that everything exists. There are plenty of people who don't believe that Christianity's version of God is real though.

Quite true. There are a lot of people that believe in no god or gods at all. That is a religion like any other. It is based on faith.

Good points. I responded to your post here:

The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them, Post #3

 

[Scott]

Yeah. An idea in science is a hypothesis. The theory is developed by observations, measurements and experiments. Can the same be true for any version of god?

It works for the theory of viruses.

WRONG. A hypothesis stems from a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates.

More interesting points, again responded to in the following thread ...

The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them, Post #5

 

[Scott]

In the case of alleged viruses, some doctors have come to believe that they are in fact exosomes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosome_(vesicle)

An exosomes are a method for cells to communicate.

Agreed.

A virus isn't a cell.

Neither are exosomes. Once, another poster attempted to differentiate between viruses and exosomes. I can't remember what he said, but I am interested, can you point towards any differences? Now, you may say that viruses are parasites, but that's not something that I've seen any solid evidence for. So, other than that?

 

[Scott]

What unit is this measurement in?

Your μpenis.

Now Lefty, be nice .

 

[Scott]

I certainly acknowledge that simply because anxiety disorder only came out as a diagnosis in the 1860s doesn't mean that telegraph lines had to be the cause. Nevertheless, it certainly suggests that it may have been the primary cause, or at least one of the causes.

It suggests no such thing. There was a war in the 1860s. There were probably over 1000 things invented and put into use in that time period. Claiming one of them is the cause without actual evidence shows you have no critical thinking skills. Any one of those many things could have been the cause and none of them could have been the cause. As I already pointed out hysteria was known to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks but it didn't make it into the medical literature until the 1800's. Making it into the medical literature is not proof that it didn't exist prior to being in the literature.

Anxiety disorder is just a type of hysteria

I've decided the subject of EMFs and its effect on life deserves a thread of its own, and have responded there:
ElectroMagnetic Frequencies (EMFs) and their effects on life, Post #2

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've decided the subject of EMFs and its effect on life deserves a thread of its own, and have responded there:
ElectroMagnetic Frequencies (EMFs) and their effects on life, Post #2

Further evidence that you are nothing but a troll. You have now started at least 5 threads in support of idiotic conspiracy theories.
Viruses don't exist
Anxiety disorder is caused by EMFs
The Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy
A 9/11 truther thread
DHS has a Ministry of Truth