>>This is a false statement, and there are innumerable papers in the public domain which establish the falsity of this statement.<<
This is simply an appeal to authority. The consensus view does not confer legitimacy as you would like everyone to believe. This is how allopathic medicine has established a dictatorship throughout the worl…
>>This is a false statement, and there are innumerable papers in the public domain which establish the falsity of this statement.<<
This is simply an appeal to authority. The consensus view does not confer legitimacy as you would like everyone to believe. This is how allopathic medicine has established a dictatorship throughout the world. The appeal to the "experts." Once you start believing in the "expets," then you are beholden to them. They call the shots and no dissent is permitted. They are the only ones who have the "cure" and you must follow them. Why? Because only they know what is true and what is false. The appeal to expert authority is why we're in trouble now. The hubris (which you suffer from) stifles scientific debate. I'll say it again: you are disingenuous with your claim that you welcome all challenges to the germ theory. I am even tempted to call you a liar.
Turfseer, I believe you are crapping up an important and otherwise high signal to noise discussion.
Peter has gone out of his way to politely and robustly disprove your argument that viruses do not exist.
You go on and on, without specific critiques of the vast number of research articles which report numerous detail about tens of thousands of types of virus.
Other people argue in various Substacks and other forums that viruses do not exist. This is about as realistic as arguing the the Sun does not exist.
As I said to Peter, I can very much live with his belief in viruses and their pathogenicity in certain cases. I recognize it's a dead end in fighting medical tyranny. The danger of the mRNA vaccines is a much more fertile ground to hold the powers-that-be to account.
No, that's not an appeal to authority. That's an appeal to evidence. You stand corrected.
Within those papers are descriptions of research methodologies, tables of raw data, illustrations of the pathogens isolated (which, by Sam Bailey's reasoning, cannot have been done).
The results of the research methodologies and the tables of raw data is that...wait for it...viruses exist.
And a large number of those research papers are in the public domain. You are at liberty to read them yourself and point out where they are wrong.
Which makes it impossible for their citation to be an appeal to authority. Hence...you stand corrected.
>>This is a false statement, and there are innumerable papers in the public domain which establish the falsity of this statement.<<
This is simply an appeal to authority. The consensus view does not confer legitimacy as you would like everyone to believe. This is how allopathic medicine has established a dictatorship throughout the world. The appeal to the "experts." Once you start believing in the "expets," then you are beholden to them. They call the shots and no dissent is permitted. They are the only ones who have the "cure" and you must follow them. Why? Because only they know what is true and what is false. The appeal to expert authority is why we're in trouble now. The hubris (which you suffer from) stifles scientific debate. I'll say it again: you are disingenuous with your claim that you welcome all challenges to the germ theory. I am even tempted to call you a liar.
Turfseer, I believe you are crapping up an important and otherwise high signal to noise discussion.
Peter has gone out of his way to politely and robustly disprove your argument that viruses do not exist.
You go on and on, without specific critiques of the vast number of research articles which report numerous detail about tens of thousands of types of virus.
Other people argue in various Substacks and other forums that viruses do not exist. This is about as realistic as arguing the the Sun does not exist.
As I said to Peter, I can very much live with his belief in viruses and their pathogenicity in certain cases. I recognize it's a dead end in fighting medical tyranny. The danger of the mRNA vaccines is a much more fertile ground to hold the powers-that-be to account.
No, that's not an appeal to authority. That's an appeal to evidence. You stand corrected.
Within those papers are descriptions of research methodologies, tables of raw data, illustrations of the pathogens isolated (which, by Sam Bailey's reasoning, cannot have been done).
The results of the research methodologies and the tables of raw data is that...wait for it...viruses exist.
And a large number of those research papers are in the public domain. You are at liberty to read them yourself and point out where they are wrong.
Which makes it impossible for their citation to be an appeal to authority. Hence...you stand corrected.