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.
Yet you yourself are not volunteering to replicate the experiment with modern flu or covid patients, despite the fact that would be trivial and easy.
And no doubt you are ignoring a massive wealth of data and experiments from the last 100 years that would discredit your position, but they all don't count for some reason probably because they are part of a jew conspiracy to make you think viruses are real, to keep your country in debt or something.
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.
Previously, when I showed you that "postulate" means "assumption" and that authority figure you were citing didn't even stick to his own assumptions you completely dropped that argument, and pivoted to something new.
Yet that was your main argument. The FIRST thing you presented when asked for justification of your beliefs.
A set of random assumptions from some idiot in the 1800s... A naked and overt argument from authority that you would never in a million years accept if it was made against your position.
Any logical person can tell that you're full of shit based on the simple fact that instead of presenting and explaining positive evidence in favor of your position, all you do is attempt to undermine evidence for the other position, as if somehow that makes your position stronger.
It doesn't... It just shows you have no evidence to prop up your position so the only way you think you can make it stand taller is to try and knock down the opposing argument.
But you have proven over and over that you absolutely refuse to do any experiments that could possibly support your argument. As that's where our debates always end.... Me telling you to go out there and prove that you're immune to viral infections in some way, and you refusing to do it.
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.
Yet you yourself are not volunteering to replicate the experiment with modern flu or covid patients, despite the fact that would be trivial and easy.
And no doubt you are ignoring a massive wealth of data and experiments from the last 100 years that would discredit your position, but they all don't count for some reason probably because they are part of a jew conspiracy to make you think viruses are real, to keep your country in debt or something.
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.
You're going back to "KoChS PoStULatES" again?
Previously, when I showed you that "postulate" means "assumption" and that authority figure you were citing didn't even stick to his own assumptions you completely dropped that argument, and pivoted to something new.
Yet that was your main argument. The FIRST thing you presented when asked for justification of your beliefs.
A set of random assumptions from some idiot in the 1800s... A naked and overt argument from authority that you would never in a million years accept if it was made against your position.
Any logical person can tell that you're full of shit based on the simple fact that instead of presenting and explaining positive evidence in favor of your position, all you do is attempt to undermine evidence for the other position, as if somehow that makes your position stronger.
It doesn't... It just shows you have no evidence to prop up your position so the only way you think you can make it stand taller is to try and knock down the opposing argument.
But you have proven over and over that you absolutely refuse to do any experiments that could possibly support your argument. As that's where our debates always end.... Me telling you to go out there and prove that you're immune to viral infections in some way, and you refusing to do it.