You mean like a vaccine?

Arguably does nothing, or is harmful like a slow acting poison. The diseases that vaccines supposedly protect against were already deep into decline before vaccination was introduced. Modern sanitation (of the kind that also existed in the ancient world) is the key, not these shitty injections.

If you take five seconds to study how the immune system works, it becomes not so mysterious and "impossible."

I don't deny that the immune system learns. However, the evolutionary pressure this places on the putative virus particle is fantastic and can't be believed. It's evolving this rapidly, yet presents as the exact same illness millennium after millennium? Gimme a break.

These types of arguments run into ideas of "absolutes" and completely ignore ideas of "averages." Everything in biology, and indeed, all of nature, can be thought of as a "battle of attrition." Attrition happens in real wars. It happens in biology (all of the universe) as well. Why use it as an argument against?

Our environment is awash in microbes of all kind. There are a wide variety of them that thrive in our body. We are all constantly infected with thousands or more such microbes, who lay low and evade defences, waiting for their chance to eat.

This would be evidence that supports the idea of a virus.

When our bodies are weakened (i.e., temperatures drop, we get less sunlight, are indoors more, exercise less, etc.) and when we encourage them to (with sugar, alcohol, fermented foods, and others) these microbes determine that they're going on the offensive. If they win, we die. If they lose, we "get sick" as our bodies engage in a pitched battle with a population of invaders that has spent months or more building up numbers.

The immune system is a very powerful thing. Paying attention to your body, and giving it what it needs, allows the body to destroy an invader before it has a chance to do it's damage. Again, this is an argument in support of "virus theory."

Only if you un-scientifically and arrogantly assume causality. My explanation fits the facts just as well. Better, in fact, as I have occam's blessing, because my explanation doesn't require the fantastic virus to exist.

Agreed. Fuckery is rampant throughout. This is not an argument against the existence of a virus, but against the diagnosis of any one particular problem. In addition to viruses making us sick, bacteria also cause disease. In the case of sanitation, it eliminates breeding grounds for bacteria. Thus improved sanitation (mostly just moving shit away from people) prevents people from getting sick from bacteria. It may even play a part in virus breeding (though off the top of my head I'm not sure how).

Improved sanitation keeps the background population of microbes low enough that your body can continuously keep them under control... unless you do something to encourage their growth, like eat carbs. The winter flu you experience is the cumulative effect of all the health-related decisions you made since last time you got sick.

How did you get that from anything I said? On the contrary, the opposite is true, and I agree with your statement completely. My health is fully my responsibility.

In exactly the way that I said? Anyone can get sick from these magic viruses, even if they're healthy. That means the responsibility is on everyone else to get vaccinated and reduce their infectious emissions to keep you from getting sick. It's health communism, yoking everyone together.

You could take perfect care of your health, then get trapped in an elevator with me as I'm coughing and sneezing and emitting droplets and being unvaxxed, and you'd get sick. Is that not a form of assault?

Of course, under my theory, someone sick getting on my elevator causes me no concern. I'm in peak shape, and the hormones and pheremones and other signals his out of control microbes are relying on to signal that it is time to attack (and which are easily broadcast from body to body) have no audience in my body... there's no microbe population to speak of to answer the call.

You are conflating two completely different things. Just because viruses exist doesn't in any way give anyone the right to claim ownership over me. The problem here is in the "inalienable Rights" v. "greater good" argument. That "the greater good" has been conflated with viruses is the real fuckery. If you can scare people enough, and make them believe that their health is not their responsibility but rather the responsibility of their "experts," then you can make a believable case for "the greater good." A "believable case" is not truth, it is just something to sell people, and it seems that you have been sold that. A part of you doesn't believe it however, so you are fighting against it. You are taking the fight to the wrong cause. The cause is not viruses, the cause is the fraud that anyone can claim the right to rule you.

Those rights were undisputed until "science" invented these new ways to collectivize us. Global warming is another example. General relativity also discourages us from considering interplanetary travel.