I dont know why people dont discuss this deeper. What I have read about how viruses were first identified it seemed they were the reaction within the body, not what they are referred to commonly today. Basically, what ever caused the reaction in the body that produced a virus in the body is not actually a virus. But that component is what people commonly refer to as a virus. The resultant "viral reaction" is non transmissable. But what ever caused it could be.
I dont think people should be dismissive of this. This is actual science. Taking the estabishments word for it is not wise.
I dont know why people dont discuss this deeper. What I have read about how viruses were first identified it seemed they were the reaction within the body, not what they are referred to commonly today. Basically, what ever caused the reaction in the body that produced a virus in the body is not actually a virus. But that component is what people commonly refer to as a virus. The resultant "viral reaction" is non transmissable. But what ever caused it could be.
I dont think people should be dismissive of this. This is actual science. Taking the estabishments word for it is not wise.
Yes. That’s what we call “a virus” — a potentially contagious element that can spread from person to person.
The “viruses aren’t real theory” does not explain away the fact of external contagions.