There is a difference between the "flat earth" and "viruses don't exist" theories.
"Viruses don't exist" is really the "Viruses haven't been proven to exist" theory and sounds less retarded. The truth is, the existing evidence, even based on the research done by the main stream scientific community, does not prove the existence of virus. It is only inferred.
There is a huge difference between proof and inference.
What is the real implication of this?
The implication is, it is necessary to spend atleast a generation or two of research into understanding pathology thats attributed to viruses, following sound scientific methods, unbiased scientists, without coaxing and cajoling with banishment by the peers or lucrative funding.
There is a difference between the "flat earth" and "viruses don't exist" theories.
"Viruses don't exist" is really the "Viruses haven't been proven to exist" theory and sounds less retarded. The truth is, the existing evidence, even based on the research done by the main stream scientific community, does not prove the existence of virus. It is only inferred.
There is a huge difference between proof and inference.
What is the real implication of this?
The implication is, it is necessary to spend atleast a generation or two of research into understanding pathology thats attributed to viruses, following sound scientific methods, unbiased scientists, without coaxing and cajoling with banishment by the peers or lucrative funding.