I just took the time to write the first few paragraphs - you are free to disavow all of the science but I strongly suggest you do not.

Anyway, this is just from a document of links I've been collecting regarding the changing consensus of what "viruses" really are - questioning even the "pathogenicity" of the ... "pathogenic" ones. They are not all scientific research, some are more editorial. They represent exactly what you are getting at. That we should distrust because this is more breaking edge - a closer picture of reality. But still I find it lacking. The virological domain of science is what it is. Observations from microscopes on tissue samples or cellular cultures + quite a few other technologies including genomic analysis (computational reconstruction of genomes, "antigen" analysis, antibodies.) I strongly advise you understand them all fully. You will only understand the ramifications of terrain theory more completely.

I just took the time to write the first few paragraphs - you are free to disavow all of the science but I strongly suggest you do not.

Anyway, this is just from a document of links I've been collecting regarding the changing consensus of what "viruses" really are - questioning even the "pathogenicity" of the ... "pathogenic" ones. They are not all scientific research, some are more editorial. They represent exactly what you are getting at. That we should distrust because this is more breaking edge - a closer picture of reality. But still I find it lacking. The virological science is what it is. Observations from microscopic and cellular cultures + quite a fwe other technologies including genomic analysis (computational reconstruction of genomes.) I strongly advised you understand them all fully. You will only understand the ramifications of terrain theory more completely.