"There's really a new way of thinking about who is going to get infected. We used to spend a lot of time talking about 6 feet of distance, 15 minutes of being together. We realize that's actually not the right way to think about this. That's not the, kind of, the most accurate way to think about this."
It's time for everyone to thank for local conspiracy theorists for standing up to the now collapsing CDC and their narratives. Once again we were proven right.
Thank you for your very detailed reply. I think I can safely say that we can agree on most points. Where we differ in our opinions is still okay. Because I realize that is exactly what they are - opinions.
Real science is trying to explain natural phenomenon in a language that can be understood by others. The key is understanding that science is NEVER fixed. The universe continues to reveal its secrets every day and if one is not flexible and open enough, they will miss what is being unveiled. If I have learned anything in all my years of education and professional scientific research and application, it is that the science is never settled. This fact has put me at odds with many colleagues stuck in their paradigms and unwilling to even consider the possibility that they are not seeing the whole picture. Being willing to see something new has cost me dearly.
Our understanding of the natural world is always changing as new information becomes available. We have to be willing to take the new information and adjust our understanding if it is applicable. But, it is still opinion. Those scientific opinions should not be held so tightly that they cannot be adjusted again in the face of newer information. This is how scientific endeavor and research should progress. Sadly, that has not been the case because of egos and financial interests.
The viral theory of infectious disease can no more be absolutely proven than terrain theory. Both sides can bring plausible information to back their positions that on the surface seems solid. But, does that make one side or the other completely right? NO. When it gets down to the nitty gritty, most science cannot be proven beyond any doubt. We must continue to have an open mind and be willing to look at new information. As soon as a position has been taken and a flag is planted on a particular hill to die on, all pursuit of real science has been lost. At that point it becomes more about defending the position of the hill and not about the scientific search for understanding. That being said, I will continue to keep an open mind about both positions because the truth really does lie somewhere in the middle between two seemingly opposing positions. Never throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a principle that has served me well and I will continue to live by it.
Thank you again for your reply. People with different, and the same, opinions is a good thing. Don't stop looking for understanding my fren. It is the journey of discovery that is the interesting part - not necessarily the destination.
While I understand you have good intentions, I strongly believe that "we will have to agree to disagree" is almost always a cop-out in a serious debate.
This is a serious topic. I have learned certain things, that I believe you have not. And because of this inbalance in knowledge, we have arrived at different conclusions.
But we cannot both be right. IMPOSSIBLE.
Either (a) viruses exist, or (b) viruses do not exist.
There is no compromise.
One of us is right and one of us is wrong, and we should BOTH be interested in finding out which is which.
If Germ Theory were true, then it would be possible to run experiments where sick ("infected") people would make other healthy people sick with the same exact symptoms.
Many have tried to do this. Nobody has ever been able to show transmission of ANY so-called virus.
That should be Clue #1.
If you can explain to me, in your own words, WHY it is that we who say that viruses do not exist believe it, then I will believe that you are seriously interested in finding the truth of this issue.
If you can do that, and you can explain why you think my position is wrong (based one WHY I think it), then we are moving in the right direction.
If you are just bowing out of the debate because you don't understand my position, and don't like it, and for no other real reason, then that is quite a shame for the ... Great Awakening, isn't, it?
Think about it.
Sorry. I do not get into polarized "debates." Like I said, the truth is not so simple as this or that and I also know that if I needed to, I could argue either position effectively. So, I will continue to agree to disagree in this area. You can think of it as you will. You are so convinced that your position is the correct one, that you are in danger of being no different than those completely sold out in the other position. This is not a matter of this is correct, or this is wrong. Science is never that black and white.
I can appreciate your strongly held beliefs, but I do not happen to agree with all of what that particular position holds, no more than I am buying everything we have been led to believe about viral theory. Nothing I could convey is going to change you mind. So, what is the point? My viewpoints are based upon my personal research, education, and professional experience. I have lost employment because of not being willing to buy into the accepted narratives. I have paid a heavy price to be a free critical thinker. So, I do not think that playing one up on creds here is productive.
The one thing that I can say, having worked in research and clinical sciences for years, is that more research needs to be done in order to show evidence of some hypothesis. So far, terrain theory has not shown that evidence - and neither has the proponents of viral theory that has not been manipulated to produce a foregone conclusion. However, I don't blame terrain people for not having that research, because frankly, no one has been willing to step up and fund it. But, until I can see some lab results that can point in a particular direction and give me data, the jury is still out for me - no matter how solid the opinions may be. The lab is where even the best hypothesis goes to die - or be manipulated.
Thank you for your time.