The Baileys offer to conduct a study to settle the debate. They are not like you who insist that the matter is settled. By dismissing them as "liars," you join the ranks of all the other authoritarians who insist "my way or the highway." If the dark theory of contagion is true, then allow critics to challenge it. If you are THEN corr…
The Baileys offer to conduct a study to settle the debate. They are not like you who insist that the matter is settled. By dismissing them as "liars," you join the ranks of all the other authoritarians who insist "my way or the highway." If the dark theory of contagion is true, then allow critics to challenge it. If you are THEN correct, so be it. But to cavalierly dismiss all those who you disagree with you as "liars," reveals you to be a person of low character.
I dismiss them as liars because knowingly making demonstrably FALSE statements is what we call LYING.
Their depictions of the state of modern virology are demonstrably false, and the only way for them not to know that is for them to be wholly ignorant of the substance of modern virology--which itself renders their theories absurd. They can be malicious, or they can just be stupid. Take your pick.
And I am happy to allow anyone to challenge germ theory--in fact, I have no power to prevent such a challenge, even if I had the inclination to do so. But here's a tip: that challenge does not begin with "germ theory is false." When that's the opening statement, what follows is not a challenge to anything except the challenger's grasp of reality.
You're completely disingenuous. On one hand you say you are "happy" to allow anyone to challenge germ theory but because you cannot countenance the idea that people like the Baileys begin with the premise the theory is false, therefore you imply that their challenge would not be legitimate. A nice way of saying that you are "not happy" to see such a challenge.
No, I'm pointing out the basic logical reality that the conclusion cannot be the predicate. That's called circular logic--which is to say its false logic.
As Sam Bailey's arguments require that germ theory be false, his arguments cannot be used to disprove germ theory. That is a logical impossibility.
Einstein managed to trump Newton by demonstrating how Newton's theories led into contradictions which his theories of relativity were able to resolve. Using those theories he was able to predict a set of astronomical phenomena which were validated during the observation of a solar eclipse right after the end of WW1 (I want to say 1920, but I might be off by a year or two).
Galileo trumped Aristotle not by stating his theories were false but by showing his theories were false (just not by climbing the leaning tower of Pisa-that part is medieval urban legend).
That's how its done. Show how the new theory trumps the old--which you do not do by first discarding the old theory.
If Sam Bailey wants to disprove germ theory, he's welcome to try. So far he has to even start.
Second, I don't believe their challenge has to do with germ theory but more specifically whether Covid is the cause of disease.
Now I can live with the idea that viruses exist and can be the cause of disease.
What bothers me are the mandates, forced vaccinations, establishment of internment camps for the unvaccinated, demonization of the unvaccinated, lockdowns, mandatory masking, etc.
IF you're against such authoritarianism I can live with your beliefs. So do you take a stand against what's happened in the last three years?
The Sam Bailey paper to which you linked said that the past century of germ/contagion theory was false, and that viruses as a whole had never been isolated. Not SARS-CoV-2 (which has been isolated, just so we're clear).
Also, an important technical clarification: COVID is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus which causes the infectious respiratory disease we call COVID.
My stand on Pharmaceutical authoritarianism is well documented in this substack. Enjoy reading.
The Baileys offer to conduct a study to settle the debate. They are not like you who insist that the matter is settled. By dismissing them as "liars," you join the ranks of all the other authoritarians who insist "my way or the highway." If the dark theory of contagion is true, then allow critics to challenge it. If you are THEN correct, so be it. But to cavalierly dismiss all those who you disagree with you as "liars," reveals you to be a person of low character.
I dismiss them as liars because knowingly making demonstrably FALSE statements is what we call LYING.
Their depictions of the state of modern virology are demonstrably false, and the only way for them not to know that is for them to be wholly ignorant of the substance of modern virology--which itself renders their theories absurd. They can be malicious, or they can just be stupid. Take your pick.
And I am happy to allow anyone to challenge germ theory--in fact, I have no power to prevent such a challenge, even if I had the inclination to do so. But here's a tip: that challenge does not begin with "germ theory is false." When that's the opening statement, what follows is not a challenge to anything except the challenger's grasp of reality.
Ignaz Semmelweis knew better than that.
John Snow knew better than that.
I know better than that.
And now you know better than that.
You're completely disingenuous. On one hand you say you are "happy" to allow anyone to challenge germ theory but because you cannot countenance the idea that people like the Baileys begin with the premise the theory is false, therefore you imply that their challenge would not be legitimate. A nice way of saying that you are "not happy" to see such a challenge.
No, I'm pointing out the basic logical reality that the conclusion cannot be the predicate. That's called circular logic--which is to say its false logic.
As Sam Bailey's arguments require that germ theory be false, his arguments cannot be used to disprove germ theory. That is a logical impossibility.
Einstein managed to trump Newton by demonstrating how Newton's theories led into contradictions which his theories of relativity were able to resolve. Using those theories he was able to predict a set of astronomical phenomena which were validated during the observation of a solar eclipse right after the end of WW1 (I want to say 1920, but I might be off by a year or two).
Galileo trumped Aristotle not by stating his theories were false but by showing his theories were false (just not by climbing the leaning tower of Pisa-that part is medieval urban legend).
That's how its done. Show how the new theory trumps the old--which you do not do by first discarding the old theory.
If Sam Bailey wants to disprove germ theory, he's welcome to try. So far he has to even start.
If this distresses you, that's your problem.
First of all Sam Bailey is a woman.
Second, I don't believe their challenge has to do with germ theory but more specifically whether Covid is the cause of disease.
Now I can live with the idea that viruses exist and can be the cause of disease.
What bothers me are the mandates, forced vaccinations, establishment of internment camps for the unvaccinated, demonization of the unvaccinated, lockdowns, mandatory masking, etc.
IF you're against such authoritarianism I can live with your beliefs. So do you take a stand against what's happened in the last three years?
The Sam Bailey paper to which you linked said that the past century of germ/contagion theory was false, and that viruses as a whole had never been isolated. Not SARS-CoV-2 (which has been isolated, just so we're clear).
Also, an important technical clarification: COVID is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus which causes the infectious respiratory disease we call COVID.
My stand on Pharmaceutical authoritarianism is well documented in this substack. Enjoy reading.
Send me your links on this subject.
You're already there. Start at the top of the substack and work your way down.
I'm sure you'll find the answers you seek eventually.
Time to do your own research. Have at it.