If you take a serious look at the things you think you know, and put them through as rigorous a shakedown as you have with Morpheus11, you'll likely come to the conclusion that you don't actually know anything.

1. Morpheus has not demonstrated any rigor whatsoever. He randomly assigns different psychological stressors to different cancers while providing no explanation or evidence. Then when I called him out on this he kicked and screamed like a child and accused me of shilling for the establishment.

2. Saying that examining my beliefs will cause me to realize I don't know anything is an utterly meaningless phrase. Saying that we can't know anything isn't an argument. If YOU are going to make an assertion (like germ theory being wrong), it is YOUR duty to provide sound arguments and evidence. And to date no germ theory denier I have ever debated has done this. Their sole argument is "Come on, bro, you can't possibly trust the establishment", which in addition to not being an argument is an inversion of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Once you let go of beliefs, a whole world of possible explanations comes into view. Sometimes, crazy explanations appear, but they're only crazy because of lingering beliefs.

Whether an idea is crazy is subjective, flat earthers think that a spherical earth is crazy. I do not judge theories based on whether they're crazy, I judge them based on whether they have supporting evidence.

Morpheus11 might have been more inclined to share more of his thoughts with you if you had been approaching him in a genuinely open-minded, curious way, but you were being confrontation instead. I get it. It's crazy stuff. But that does not make it wrong, it just means your beliefs are being challenged.

Firstly, I asked Morpheus multiple times to explain the exact mechanism behind his theory and articulate any evidence in favor of his theory. To date he has provided neither. All he had to do was provide one paper, from any person of his choosing, that explains the exact mechanism behind how psychological states cause cancer and contagious diseases, and show a controlled experiment that supports the theory.

Secondly, asking for evidence and rational arguments is not being close minded, it is being rigorous. Any theory should stand up to scrutiny, but all he did was accuse me of being afraid of new ideas. Furthermore, when I showed evidence that opposed his notion that viruses don't exist, he dismissed this evidence on the sole grounds that it was "establishment propaganda", which is being truly close-minded.

Thirdly, he made clear that his definition of "open-minded" meant "agree with me without question". And he required this complete subservience before he deign to explain his position. That is not science, that is a cult.

Lastly, I do not mind my beliefs being challenged, I welcome it. But any challenger must come with facts and logic. Random accusations of "your an establishment shill" and "you just need to be more open-minded", along with refusal to acknowledge opposing evidence, I do not tolerate.