What exactly are you claiming here? Are you saying because Merck typed out an introductory statement in a webpage that this confirms the virus theory of disease? Or are you claiming that because Merck says viruses are parasites of a particular size that “viruses” exist in some form, regardless of their nature?
I didn’t ask the question of you, Bill. I asked it in terms of defining the subject. We can’t assume, as the reader what the author means by ‘nature’ considering the subject is back up for debate. Here I am enjoying this thought provoking post and I contribute with more questions and Bill here gets offended. Fucking retarded.
What exactly are you claiming here? Are you saying because Merck typed out an introductory statement in a webpage that this confirms the virus theory of disease? Or are you claiming that because Merck says viruses are parasites of a particular size that “viruses” exist in some form, regardless of their nature?
What is their ‘nature’ then?
I can’t have a conversation with someone answering a question with a question.
I didn’t ask the question of you, Bill. I asked it in terms of defining the subject. We can’t assume, as the reader what the author means by ‘nature’ considering the subject is back up for debate. Here I am enjoying this thought provoking post and I contribute with more questions and Bill here gets offended. Fucking retarded.
This you?
“What is their ‘nature’ then?”
Fucking retarded indeed.