You’re so fixated on me giving you some reading material (which in itself was NOT the focal point of the argument) that you failed to realize why. I didn’t think you could prove yourself to be more blind, but, you did.
You are not listening. You posted a link of some site showing images of bacteria (which are very real) and viruses (which are very much not real), blind to the truth that viruses are nothing more than dead cell debris.
Then you asked for a "peer reviewed" paper, and then have since been doing nothing but attacking an author for trying to make a living outside of medicine, claiming that should disqualify him from any opinion ever, despite him having two decades in the field.
On top of that, your criteria for what a "peer" even is had not been defined. It is obvious you didn't read what I sent, because there are dozens of doctors who helped write this report, and hundreds more who have "reviewed" it. "Peer review" is simply receiving critique from others in your relevant field. So, this paper has been reviewed, critiqued, commented on, etc... by people from all sides of this aisle, and you can find those reviews if you just stop being stuck up the asshole of dogma for a brief moment.
All you have been doing is attacking this (retired) doctor while refusing to read a now well-reviewed paper (so of course you wouldn't see the critiques of it; isn't that the best part of peer review?).
No, you say that "if it does not end up in an "official" journal, then it is fake! Fake! My high-priest of SciEnCe says it's fake because Lancet or Cell did not publish it!."
Sweetie, your priests are lying to you. Their "peer reviewed" papers and experiments claiming viruses exist are: faulty, illogical, not repeatable, contain no control experiments, and violate their own rules of what constitutes virology. In other words, it is not science.
So you stating that there needs to be experiments proving that viruses do not exist is the most backwards logic imaginable. Viruses, have never even been proved! And you demand that somehow we disprove them? lol
Virology at it's core is created on a false notion that these tiny little mystery particles (which have never been isolated, or been shown to replicate, or been shown to cause the specific disease they took the original sample from), grown in poisoned culture with different DNAs from different species, make you sick. There are more logical reasons why someone would get sick than invisible make-believe little particles.
Did you know that you can "make" viruses using no original sample at all? Surely that is a paper you'd be interested in. There are examples of how different samples of the same control culture, with no foreign material having been introduced, under different conditions will "create" different "viruses."
At this point, I am only feeding a troll because you have refused to hear what I'm saying because you are so insecure you hide behind "muh peer reviewed only" guise to ward off anything that could potentially change your mind.
Virology, is just an extension of pharma. It's just good for business, but has no basis in truth.
Your "scientific process" does not exist in virology!
They use circular logic and confirmation biases. It is not science. Read any virology paper and they are all littered with logical fallacies.
But, you won't. You have proven yourself blind and of ill thought. Congratulations.
You’re so fixated on me giving you some reading material (which in itself was NOT the focal point of the argument) that you failed to realize why. I didn’t think you could prove yourself to be more blind, but, you did.
You are not listening. You posted a link of some site showing images of bacteria (which are very real) and viruses (which are very much not real), blind to the truth that viruses are nothing more than dead cell debris.
Then you asked for a "peer reviewed" paper, and then have since been doing nothing but attacking an author for trying to make a living outside of medicine, claiming that should disqualify him from any opinion ever, despite him having two decades in the field.
On top of that, your criteria for what a "peer" even is had not been defined. It is obvious you didn't read what I sent, because there are dozens of doctors who helped write this report, and hundreds more who have "reviewed" it. "Peer review" is simply receiving critique from others in your relevant field. So, this paper has been reviewed, critiqued, commented on, etc... by people from all sides of this aisle, and you can find those reviews if you just stop being stuck up the asshole of dogma for a brief moment.
All you have been doing is attacking this (retired) doctor while refusing to read a now well-reviewed paper (so of course you wouldn't see the critiques of it; isn't that the best part of peer review?).
No, you say that "if it does not end up in an "official" journal, then it is fake! Fake! My high-priest of SciEnCe says it's fake because Lancet or Cell did not publish it!."
Sweetie, your priests are lying to you. Their "peer reviewed" papers and experiments claiming viruses exist are: faulty, illogical, not repeatable, contain no control experiments, and violate their own rules of what constitutes virology. In other words, it is not science.
So you stating that there needs to be experiments proving that viruses do not exist is the most backwards logic imaginable. Viruses, have never even been proved! And you demand that somehow we disprove them? lol
Virology at it's core is created on a false notion that these tiny little mystery particles (which have never been isolated, or been shown to replicate, or been shown to cause the specific disease they took the original sample from), grown in poisoned culture with different DNAs from different species, make you sick. There are more logical reasons why someone would get sick than invisible make-believe little particles.
Did you know that you can "make" viruses using no original sample at all? Surely that is a paper you'd be interested in. There are examples of how different samples of the same control culture, with no foreign material having been introduced, under different conditions will "create" different "viruses."
At this point, I am only feeding a troll because you have refused to hear what I'm saying because you are so insecure you hide behind "muh peer reviewed only" guise to ward off anything that could potentially change your mind.
Virology, is just an extension of pharma. It's just good for business, but has no basis in truth.