Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.
How do you know they did the experiment correctly? How do you know they had proper controls? What peer review process was this subjected to? Did the peer review reach the same conclusion after replicating the experiment?
But okay.... Let's just POSTULATE that experiment is totally correct, and the conclusion perfectly describes reality.
Does that prove that covid, modern influenza strains, HIV, and genital herpes can't be spread from person to person?
Are we really gonna sit here and pretend like every single one of us has not first hand witnessed a cold spread from one sick person to an entire office, school, or home?
See this is a very common trick in sophistry where a very narrow and specific "fact" is taken and extrapolated to a much higher general level that it doesn't really apply to.
"One particular experiment 120 years ago failed to demonstrate that spanish flu was contagious, therefore that proves that nothing is contagious."
Let me give you some advice. Don't even worry about viruses... Don't worry about the holohoax, or the shape of the earth, or ancient aliens, or ANY OTHER THEORY you can imagine.
Instead you need to go back to square one and study basic epistemology. The process by which knowledge is ascertained and demonstrated. Probably the most important philosophical concepts any person could learn.
Until you figure that out (and it's clear you haven't) you're wasting your time on EVERYTHING because you don't understand the basic principles of knowledge.
Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.
However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't.
So you're saying nobody replicated these findings on the spanish flu?
(and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
So what? In like 2010 there was a very detailed and highly complex experiment preformed at the LHC where they claimed to have measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
The claim went viral. It was all over the internet for an entire news cycle. Years later anyone who was aware enough to seek out an update to that story would have seen it turns out they actually were using faulty math to calibrate their sensors. But that story never went viral.
An experiment or being extremely detailed and thorough is not a substitute for independently replicating the findings.
So again.... Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
There are.... There absolutely are...
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
Then I'll take 50 sane people, and inject them with blood from a person who is HIV negative.
Then 10 years later I'll measure how many from each group are still alive, and do an analysis on the cause of death for the ones who aren't.
BOOM!!!!! There ya go...
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science.
You can take it as an ad-hom if you want... But I'm still gonna stand by my point that it seems like you haven't studied epistemology at all, and doing so will greatly benefit you in many areas of your life, not just your ability to win internet debates.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen? No. Like your flu, The illness is caused by a variety of factors, none of which solely require a fixtional boogeyman. There are environmental factors at play here. Those are the real causes of disease.
Eat shitty food? get sick
Ammonium-based ice-melt sprayed in the roads? Get sick
Too much stress? Get sick
Too much fear? Get sick
Astrological influences happening that you are not sympathetic to? Get sick
Electrical interference with your bodies’ processes? Get sick.
Get a wound and bacteria (actually real) get in? Get sick.
“Viruses” are just a manufactured boogeyman to try and materialize environmental forces that actually cause our diseases.
Yes I have and am quite familiar. Polio is the reason why I no longer think viruses are real: it was purely a chemical contamination of the spinal cord
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen?
Did they undergo a rigorous controlled experiment to verify they were actually completely and totally isolated during this time with zero exposure to any other human being?
Or did they just stay home, order uber eats, shop on amazon, and cash government checks at drive-through atms?
Nobody was totally isolated.... Give me a fucking break.
And the same goes for viruses. They are not isolated. They never have been and never will because they don it exist. All virology is doing is taking snot, blood, shit, piss, spinal fluid, and purifying it, then putting it in a toxic bath of antibiotics, industrial chemicals, monkey or bovid kidney cells, then watching what happens. They see that the cells start to die and these tiny little things start coming out of them. News flash sweetheart: all of that stuff was already in the cell, and the cell died. It was not hijacked by a microscopic boogeyman, it was inside of a DNA soup with no food and toxic chemicals floating around. No shit it’s going to die. The kicker? Those tiny little particles that you claim are the viruses have never been isolated or shown to cause illness.
It doesn’t matter how many papers are published or fancy CGI microscopy videos come out, it’s all bullshit based on bullshit foundations. It is a pseudoscience invented by people who wanted to sell you something and keep you from knowing what actually can make you sick.
Your comment about getting a Nobel is rich, as now I am not sure if you are sarcastic or actually retarded: I would have assumed you know that any scientific fact that goes against the mainstream gets shut down, but clearly, you drink the Kool Aid. Let me spell it out for you; any fact, regardless of how how well-researched it is, that goes against modern pharma, gets buried.
The mantra of virology: Monkey see, monkey do, follow along, and you’re a monkey to.
They are not isolated. They never have been and never will because they don it exist.
When you say they haven't been isolated, do you actually mean they haven't removed from their natural environment, killed on a petri dish, brought back to life, and re-establish in living cells once more?
Gee.... I wonder why that hasn't happened.
They see that the cells start to die and these tiny little things start coming out of them. News flash sweetheart: all of that stuff was already in the cell, and the cell died
Then explain why they see DIFFERENT tiny little things coming out of those cells depending on which disease the person is manifesting?
Why do cells from people with HIV produce different tiny little things than cells from people with the flu?
Okay, but we've all caught the flu, a cold, or covid from other people without having needles stuck into our brains right?
Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.
How do you know they did the experiment correctly? How do you know they had proper controls? What peer review process was this subjected to? Did the peer review reach the same conclusion after replicating the experiment?
But okay.... Let's just POSTULATE that experiment is totally correct, and the conclusion perfectly describes reality.
Does that prove that covid, modern influenza strains, HIV, and genital herpes can't be spread from person to person?
Are we really gonna sit here and pretend like every single one of us has not first hand witnessed a cold spread from one sick person to an entire office, school, or home?
See this is a very common trick in sophistry where a very narrow and specific "fact" is taken and extrapolated to a much higher general level that it doesn't really apply to.
"One particular experiment 120 years ago failed to demonstrate that spanish flu was contagious, therefore that proves that nothing is contagious."
Let me give you some advice. Don't even worry about viruses... Don't worry about the holohoax, or the shape of the earth, or ancient aliens, or ANY OTHER THEORY you can imagine.
Instead you need to go back to square one and study basic epistemology. The process by which knowledge is ascertained and demonstrated. Probably the most important philosophical concepts any person could learn.
Until you figure that out (and it's clear you haven't) you're wasting your time on EVERYTHING because you don't understand the basic principles of knowledge.
Sigh... Look, you obviously don't understand what 'peer review' is. However, the first two sentences of your first paragraph are fine. And, you're right... I know neither things, nor do you. However, subsequent experiments should then unveil the truth -- which they didn't. (and, if you read the readily available Rosenau experiment... it's quite detailed).
Does it disprove (HIV, Influenza...etc)... well... no. Obviously not. So then there should be experiments that prove those... which there aren't.
Sophistry... okay, but nowhere did I claim what you claim that I claimed. The issue is that (a) one experiment claimed no transmission... and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.
As for your ad-hominems. What's the point? Experiment is the basis of science. Yes, I only gave one example, but then you should be rife with counter-examples set in impeccably perfect physical conditions that show a viral transmission. Good luck.
So you're saying nobody replicated these findings on the spanish flu?
So what? In like 2010 there was a very detailed and highly complex experiment preformed at the LHC where they claimed to have measured particles traveling faster than the speed of light.
The claim went viral. It was all over the internet for an entire news cycle. Years later anyone who was aware enough to seek out an update to that story would have seen it turns out they actually were using faulty math to calibrate their sensors. But that story never went viral.
An experiment or being extremely detailed and thorough is not a substitute for independently replicating the findings.
So again.... Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
There are.... There absolutely are...
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
Then I'll take 50 sane people, and inject them with blood from a person who is HIV negative.
Then 10 years later I'll measure how many from each group are still alive, and do an analysis on the cause of death for the ones who aren't.
BOOM!!!!! There ya go...
You can take it as an ad-hom if you want... But I'm still gonna stand by my point that it seems like you haven't studied epistemology at all, and doing so will greatly benefit you in many areas of your life, not just your ability to win internet debates.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen? No. Like your flu, The illness is caused by a variety of factors, none of which solely require a fixtional boogeyman. There are environmental factors at play here. Those are the real causes of disease.
Eat shitty food? get sick
Ammonium-based ice-melt sprayed in the roads? Get sick
Too much stress? Get sick
Too much fear? Get sick
Astrological influences happening that you are not sympathetic to? Get sick
Electrical interference with your bodies’ processes? Get sick.
Get a wound and bacteria (actually real) get in? Get sick.
“Viruses” are just a manufactured boogeyman to try and materialize environmental forces that actually cause our diseases.
Filled: I don't know if you've looked into the curious case of Polio... if you do, you'll see it's even more cynical/evil than you've outlined.
Yes I have and am quite familiar. Polio is the reason why I no longer think viruses are real: it was purely a chemical contamination of the spinal cord
Did they undergo a rigorous controlled experiment to verify they were actually completely and totally isolated during this time with zero exposure to any other human being?
Or did they just stay home, order uber eats, shop on amazon, and cash government checks at drive-through atms?
Nobody was totally isolated.... Give me a fucking break.
And the same goes for viruses. They are not isolated. They never have been and never will because they don it exist. All virology is doing is taking snot, blood, shit, piss, spinal fluid, and purifying it, then putting it in a toxic bath of antibiotics, industrial chemicals, monkey or bovid kidney cells, then watching what happens. They see that the cells start to die and these tiny little things start coming out of them. News flash sweetheart: all of that stuff was already in the cell, and the cell died. It was not hijacked by a microscopic boogeyman, it was inside of a DNA soup with no food and toxic chemicals floating around. No shit it’s going to die. The kicker? Those tiny little particles that you claim are the viruses have never been isolated or shown to cause illness.
It doesn’t matter how many papers are published or fancy CGI microscopy videos come out, it’s all bullshit based on bullshit foundations. It is a pseudoscience invented by people who wanted to sell you something and keep you from knowing what actually can make you sick.
Your comment about getting a Nobel is rich, as now I am not sure if you are sarcastic or actually retarded: I would have assumed you know that any scientific fact that goes against the mainstream gets shut down, but clearly, you drink the Kool Aid. Let me spell it out for you; any fact, regardless of how how well-researched it is, that goes against modern pharma, gets buried.
The mantra of virology: Monkey see, monkey do, follow along, and you’re a monkey to.
When you say they haven't been isolated, do you actually mean they haven't removed from their natural environment, killed on a petri dish, brought back to life, and re-establish in living cells once more?
Gee.... I wonder why that hasn't happened.
Then explain why they see DIFFERENT tiny little things coming out of those cells depending on which disease the person is manifesting?
Why do cells from people with HIV produce different tiny little things than cells from people with the flu?