Lots of evidence in the form of micrographs of the microbes and other organisms living within living beings. Cell cultures. Etc. Your claim of "without a shred of actual, scientific proof" simply omits all the proof that has been developed over the past centuries.
Which part or this paragraph constitutes "proof" of the existence of boogeyman-viruses or contagion? Do you consider it "proof" that nobody can find or ever had found boogeyman-viruses anywhere in the wild, in the fluids or tissues of a sick person?
Does not the fact that our establishment experts and authorities can only "manufacture" boogeyman-viruses through a highly toxic "cell culture" of chemicals and foreign DNA....or "genetically ASSEMBLE** strands of random DNA/RNA with no definitive provenance "proof"?
Are you as easily duped as our brainwashed experts and authorities or are you willing to stop outsourcing your intellectual sovereignty to them and thinking for yourself?
A "micrograph of microorganisms" does not even APPROACH proving the existence of boogeyman-viruses and is many light years away from proving contagion.
You're going to have to do way better than that if you wish to intellectually DISMISS* the elephant in the room. Bring it!
You go right ahead and write your book, putting your case into documentary form, and let the outside world tear it to pieces. I'm not a medical expert or a cellular biologist, but I recognize blather by how loud it is. I've read of military (Air Force, I think) experiments to determine whether colds are the result of exposure, or of contagion, and contagion was the answer. Makes a big difference when dealing with troops in cold, wet trenches. Protection against contagion is useful. According to you, it is meaningless. Sorry, go peddle your papers to those whose eyes are not strained by bold caps. Write it down. Submit it to the world. See what happens. See if your extreme claims are refuted.
"Colds" are caused by annoyance/frustration "stink conflicts"...a.k.a. BELIEFS....as is the cause of all dis-eases.
The military ran the one and only wide scale contagion experiment that hasn't been fully scrubbed by our overlords in 1918 by attempting to transmit "Spanish Flu" between unwitting cadets. It was a spectacular failure. Not one case of "Spanish Flu" was transmitted to a healthy cadet using the saliva, mucous, coughing, sneezing and spitting efforts of the unhealthy onto the healthy. Over one thousand tries. Zero successes.
And so too have all the other --- very hard to find -- experiments in the ensuing 40 years. All of them complete failtures in all respects.
Whatever study you're referring to contains exactly ZERO SCIENCE, instead using speculation and assumption to arrive at their conclusions.
Considering the monumental efforts of thousands of people to find such a study even remotely resembling what you claim, that's a logical conclusion to draw, is it not?
More evidence that you don't really run with evidence.
I sit here ready, willing and able to be corrected. I'll give you all the props in the world for doing so too!
Produce the study you refer to and we'll examine whether I'm correct or mistaken. No need for disparaging remarks.
Send me the link and we'll see if we can find any science it it. I stand fully prepared to "eat crow".
But if you don't produce the study (link/paper), I can only assume you've realized i was correct in my speculation.
Which part or this paragraph constitutes "proof" of the existence of boogeyman-viruses or contagion? Do you consider it "proof" that nobody can find or ever had found boogeyman-viruses anywhere in the wild, in the fluids or tissues of a sick person?
Does not the fact that our establishment experts and authorities can only "manufacture" boogeyman-viruses through a highly toxic "cell culture" of chemicals and foreign DNA....or "genetically ASSEMBLE** strands of random DNA/RNA with no definitive provenance "proof"?
Are you as easily duped as our brainwashed experts and authorities or are you willing to stop outsourcing your intellectual sovereignty to them and thinking for yourself?
A "micrograph of microorganisms" does not even APPROACH proving the existence of boogeyman-viruses and is many light years away from proving contagion.
You're going to have to do way better than that if you wish to intellectually DISMISS* the elephant in the room. Bring it!
You go right ahead and write your book, putting your case into documentary form, and let the outside world tear it to pieces. I'm not a medical expert or a cellular biologist, but I recognize blather by how loud it is. I've read of military (Air Force, I think) experiments to determine whether colds are the result of exposure, or of contagion, and contagion was the answer. Makes a big difference when dealing with troops in cold, wet trenches. Protection against contagion is useful. According to you, it is meaningless. Sorry, go peddle your papers to those whose eyes are not strained by bold caps. Write it down. Submit it to the world. See what happens. See if your extreme claims are refuted.
Dozens of books have already been written. This is the latest that annihilates the fraud from every conceivable angle. It's an open and shut case.
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
"Colds" are caused by annoyance/frustration "stink conflicts"...a.k.a. BELIEFS....as is the cause of all dis-eases.
The military ran the one and only wide scale contagion experiment that hasn't been fully scrubbed by our overlords in 1918 by attempting to transmit "Spanish Flu" between unwitting cadets. It was a spectacular failure. Not one case of "Spanish Flu" was transmitted to a healthy cadet using the saliva, mucous, coughing, sneezing and spitting efforts of the unhealthy onto the healthy. Over one thousand tries. Zero successes.
And so too have all the other --- very hard to find -- experiments in the ensuing 40 years. All of them complete failtures in all respects.
Whatever study you're referring to contains exactly ZERO SCIENCE, instead using speculation and assumption to arrive at their conclusions.
You don't know what that study was, and you condemn it as being unscientific? More evidence that you don't really run with evidence.
Considering the monumental efforts of thousands of people to find such a study even remotely resembling what you claim, that's a logical conclusion to draw, is it not?
I sit here ready, willing and able to be corrected. I'll give you all the props in the world for doing so too!
Produce the study you refer to and we'll examine whether I'm correct or mistaken. No need for disparaging remarks.
Send me the link and we'll see if we can find any science it it. I stand fully prepared to "eat crow".
But if you don't produce the study (link/paper), I can only assume you've realized i was correct in my speculation.
Which is it?