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 and then no other experiments in the history of science superseded it.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.
For someone that talks about epistemology... Look, the rosenau experiment suggested that viral transmission doesn't exist. There are no counter-experiments from the Spanish Flu that demonstrate that viruses do exist. Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.
I'm sorry to go ad-hominem myself, but your level of stupidity is astonishing.
Have the findings of the "Rosenau experiment" been replicated or not?
Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.
I'll take 50 virus deniers and inject them with blood from an HIV positive person.
You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.
You could also just let doctors and nurses interact with 'infected' people and... oh wait, that's done every day, so I guess that the results are clear!
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.
For someone that talks about epistemology... Look, the rosenau experiment suggested that viral transmission doesn't exist. There are no counter-experiments from the Spanish Flu that demonstrate that viruses do exist. Since you're a 'logic' guy you should recognize that at best the virus hypothesis is not disproven.
I'm sorry to go ad-hominem myself, but your level of stupidity is astonishing.
Who cares? The issue is -- has the viral model been replicated via experiment... no... only 'epidemiologically'.
You can do one better. You can give us full blood transfusions! Go ahead -- look into the evidence of your 'experiment'.
You could also just let doctors and nurses interact with 'infected' people and... oh wait, that's done every day, so I guess that the results are clear!
Bruv: You've obviously been raised very well, because, despite our arguments, you've been very polite. Thank you. Or, maybe, thank your parents.