The point retard, was it doesn't have to be "a self replicating virus" in the blood to pose danger because there are other toxic or poisonous compounds that cause pathology without replicating.
How do you know what's in the blood? We're once again at square one - you can't demonstrate there is a virus because you can't properly isolate it. It's either cultured or diagnosed via PCR. What if you can't detect the actual pathogen in the blood? I'm not taking blood from any person who's sick regardless of what's causing the disease. I'd go with the old wisdom, call it "bad blood" and pass.
I don't expect anything. I wouldn't inject blood of someone who's sick with the flu either. But I don't pretend to know exactly what's causing those diseases.
If it were caused by a transmissible virus via blood or close contact with a patient they would have managed to get at least one person sick out of the hundreds who took part in the experiments.
Your entire position boils down to an argument from personal incredulity, because you can't possibly imagine how an experiment 100 years ago could have failed. And if you can't imagine how it could fail, that means viruses aren't real.
It's not just one experiment. There never was a successful one, just like they never successfully isolated a virus. I don't have a good reason to believe in it when the evidence is lacking.
The point retard, was it doesn't have to be "a self replicating virus" in the blood to pose danger because there are other toxic or poisonous compounds that cause pathology without replicating.
How do you know what's in the blood? We're once again at square one - you can't demonstrate there is a virus because you can't properly isolate it. It's either cultured or diagnosed via PCR. What if you can't detect the actual pathogen in the blood? I'm not taking blood from any person who's sick regardless of what's causing the disease. I'd go with the old wisdom, call it "bad blood" and pass.
I don't expect anything. I wouldn't inject blood of someone who's sick with the flu either. But I don't pretend to know exactly what's causing those diseases.
If it were caused by a transmissible virus via blood or close contact with a patient they would have managed to get at least one person sick out of the hundreds who took part in the experiments.
It's not just one experiment. There never was a successful one, just like they never successfully isolated a virus. I don't have a good reason to believe in it when the evidence is lacking.