you can agree that sanitation and hygiene are tools for better health, but the how and why it works is just pure speculation?

I am claiming that your opinion is not proven, anymore than magic fairy dust.

alcohol kills bacteria, or viruses with an envelope

IF viruses have never been isolated to the point where a virus can be physically examined directly, then your claim is speculation, regarding viruses.

Show me this virus of which you speak, and I will reconsider.

Bacteria, of course, are real. Show me the research paper that proved your claim regarding alcohol, bacteria, and how this all solves the problem you say it does.

And while you are at it, show me the research paper that proved that it was the bacteria that was doing the harm, such that when the bacteria were killed it solved the problem.

It seems to me that you referring to claims that attempt to explain how alcohol solves the problem (claims made not by you, but by others who you believe). Is there research to back it up?

There was a story about how back in the day, a doctor might go directly from a morgue to a woman giving birth, and not wash his hands inbetween.

Once he started washing hands between, the rate of mortality of the women and children went down. Maybe there was something in the cadaver that was harmful to the living humans. Maybe using alcohol also helps, by washing off harmful material, such as bacteria and even viruses (if they exist). But I am asking: Is there any research to document this claim?

I'd expect you to apply the same critical lens to Cowan. he uses other's research to make claims that even the researcher doesn't make.

I am open to what you might have to show that Cowan is wrong.

Of course, we are adults here. We should not pretend to be so naive as to have disbelief that a researcher, who gets paid if he tows the line, might sometimes fall short of saying the obvious about the results of his own research, simply because he doesn't want to harm his own chances for his next round of funding.

If you can cite a specific example, I will take a look.

I am not a Cowan cultist. He could be wrong. He could even by lying. But if he is either, someone somewhere should be able to show how they know that to be the case.

Can you?

oversimplifies the complex relationship between virus, host organism, and environment.

That is a vague (and therefore, meaningless) statement. Cowan says there is no virus, so no oversimplification of its complex relationship with other things is valid.

Show me how he is wrong. Whenever I see or hear someone make a vague claim like this, my experience has been that they are usually covering for the fact that they have no facts to back up their opinion.

I am willing to learn more about why you think this, but please be specific. Vague statements that are not related to any facts are not something I tolerate well.

his theory of exosomes is already outdated -- newer technology is improving methods to separate exosomes from viruses

Again, these are vague statements that, to me at least, mean nothing.

I recently had a conversation with a woman who is studying biology for her college degree. I moved the conversation into viruses, and discussed some of Cowan's ideas.

She disagreed, of course. So, I discussed the process that virologists use to "find a virus" (according to Cowan and others who agree with him, such as virologist Stefan Lanka), and all she could say is that they have "other ways to find it."

Well, that is a vague statement, so I tried to get her to explain. Turns out, she was referring to surrogate marker type of reserach, where a dye will show a "virual DNA" and such. But for anyone to KNOW with certainty that whatever that thing is really IS some DNA from a virus, we have to FIRST know that the virus exists, isolate it to study it, and THEN find the DNA. Only then can we go back and do these other studies.

From what I can tell the reason they do all these surrogate tests is BECAUSE they cannot look at the real thing.

If over 100 labs and "experts" in the world (such as FDA, CDC, foreign government equivelents, universities, etc.) have ALL said that they (a) do not have any SARS-Cov-2 isolated virus, (b) cannot point to any other lab anywhere in the world that has any, and (c) do not have and cannot point to any research paper anywhere in the world that has ever isolated this virus, then ... THAT is a problem.

All other "tests" are surrogate marker tests, and they are NOT a replacement for the real thing (which does not seem to exist).

If that is wrong, then set me straight -- but SHOW ME THE PROOF. Vague claims are meaningless babble, as far as I am concerned.

When I first heard of Tom Cowan, I took time to understand what he was saying. Then, I looked for anyone who was refuting what he was saying. I didn't find anyone.

Then, I found out he was also working with other people, who seem credible, and who do not seem to have anyone debunking them (in a MEANINGFUL way).

The ONLY thing I see from the other side are vague claims, surrogate marker tests that are weak attempts to "do something" since doing the actual research is impossible (for some strange reason ...).

So, your claims are interesting, but not persuasive.

Go beyond vague claims, and I will take a look.

you can agree that sanitation and hygiene are tools for better health, but the how and why it works is just pure speculation?

I am claiming that your opinion is not proven, anymore than magic fairy dust.

alcohol kills bacteria, or viruses with an envelope

IF viruses have never been isolated to the point where a virus can be physically examined directly, then your claim is speculation, regarding viruses.

Show me this virus of which you speak, and I will reconsider.

Bacteria, of course, are real. Show me the research paper that proved your claim regarding alcohol, bacteria, and how this all solves the problem you say it does.

And while you are at it, show me the research paper that proved that it was the bacteria that was doing the harm, such that when the bacteria were killed it solved the problem.

It seems to me that you referring to claims that attempt to explain how alcohol solves the problem (claims made not by you, but by others who you believe). Is there research to back it up?

There was a story about how back in the day, a doctor might go directly from a morgue to a woman giving birth, and not wash his hands inbetween.

Once he started washing hands between, the rate of mortality of the women and children went down. Maybe there was something in the cadaver that was harmful to the living humans. Maybe using alcohol also helps, by washing off harmful material, such as bacteria and even viruses (if they exist). But I am asking: Is there any research to document this claim?

I'd expect you to apply the same critical lens to Cowan. he uses other's research to make claims that even the researcher doesn't make.

I am open to what you might have to show that Cowan is wrong.

Of course, we are adults here. We should not pretend to be so naive as to think that a researcher, who gets paid if he tows the line, might sometimes fall short of saying the obvious about the results of his own research, simply because he doesn't want to harm his own chances for his next round of funding.

If you can cite a specific example, I will take a look.

I am not a Cowan cultist. He could be wrong. He could even by lying. But if he is either, someone somewhere should be able to show how they know that to be the case.

Can you?

oversimplifies the complex relationship between virus, host organism, and environment.

That is a vague (and therefore, meaningless) statement. Cowan says there is no virus, so no oversimplification of its complex relationship with other things is valid.

Show me how he is wrong. Whenever I see or hear someone make a vague claim like this, my experience has been that they are usually covering for the fact that they have no facts to back up their opinion.

I am willing to learn more about why you think this, but please be specific. Vague statements that are not related to any facts are not something I tolerate well.

his theory of exosomes is already outdated -- newer technology is improving methods to separate exosomes from viruses

Again, these are vague statements that, to me at least, mean nothing.

I recently had a conversation with a woman who is studying biology for her college degree. I moved the conversation into viruses, and discussed some of Cowan's ideas.

She disagreed, of course. So, I discussed the process that virologists use to "find a virus" (according to Cowan and others who agree with him, such as virologist Stefan Lanka), and all she could say is that they have "other ways to find it."

Well, that is a vague statement, so I tried to get her to explain. Turns out, she was referring to surrogate marker type of reserach, where a dye will show a "virual DNA" and such. But for anyone to KNOW with certainty that whatever that thing is really IS some DNA from a virus, we have to FIRST know that the virus exists, isolate it to study it, and THEN find the DNA. Only then can we go back and do these other studies.

From what I can tell the reason they do all these surrogate tests is BECAUSE they cannot look at the real thing.

If over 100 labs and "experts" in the world (such as FDA, CDC, foreign government equivelents, universities, etc.) have ALL said that they (a) do not have any SARS-Cov-2 isolated virus, (b) cannot point to any other lab anywhere in the world that has any, and (c) do not have and cannot point to any research paper anywhere in the world that has ever isolated this virus, then ... THAT is a problem.

All other "tests" are surrogate marker tests, and they are NOT a replacement for the real thing (which does not seem to exist).

If that is wrong, then set me straight -- but SHOW ME THE PROOF. Vague claims are meaningless babble, as far as I am concerned.

When I first heard of Tom Cowan, I took time to understand what he was saying. Then, I looked for anyone who was refuting what he was saying. I didn't find anyone.

Then, I found out he was also working with other people, who seem credible, and who do not seem to have anyone debunking them (in a MEANINGFUL way).

The ONLY thing I see from the other side are vague claims, surrogate marker tests that are weak attempts to "do something" since doing the actual research is impossible (for some strange reason ...).

So, your claims are interesting, but not persuasive.

Go beyond vague claims, and I will take a look.