Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim's avatar

I think you’re misinterpreting Stones view.

Simply, the scientific method outlined by Stone removes the introduction of logical fallacies (eg. Reification Fallacy) during the scientific process.

If you agree that the scientific process should be free from logical fallacies then there would be nothing to debate, there would be thousands of scientific papers identifying viruses using the strict scientific method that would be reproducible and findings would be similar across the board.

This is simply not the case. Virology is plagued by logical fallacies and Stone has carried out extensive research to identify these errors. The viral hypothesis has been adequately falsified and should have been abandoned decades ago.

There are many errors in your post including the claim that a process has been directly observed using EM. The claim that a process has been directly observed using a two dimensional image is fallacious. Virologists disregard these blatant errors and instead invent fantasy claims to cover their errors. Hence the analogy of the dead trees and pool, it’s story telling, not science.

The number of human beings that have directly observed in real time the replication process of a virus is precisely zero. Observing dying cells does not prove the existence of an entity that meets the definition of a virus, it’s just what virologists use to entertain the story of viruses.

There is no place for logical fallacies in the scientific method, if you believe there is then you are bringing the scientific field into disrepute. Stone has clearly identified these violations in the field of virology and has correctly labeled the field as pseudoscience.

In conclusion, I am more than willing to be shown that viruses exist. Just conduct a study that identifies an independent variable and uses the strict scientific method that is free from logical fallacies, and if the findings are reproducible I will gladly support the hypothesis.

Expand full comment
Denier of Soyence's avatar

The steps required to ‘prove a virus exists’ have been done by several labs, and repeated many times.

Unfortunately, when they use no sample ‘virus’, the findings are similar to what ‘virologists’ find.

More people are discovering this every day, therefore more and more people are realizing and processing the fact that ‘virology’ is a pseudoscience, and that ‘viruses’ have not been shown to exist (let alone having been shown to cause disease or be contagious, even if one believes the nonsense of something nonliving that floats around until going up one’s nose and then coming to life to kill you, funny stuff 🤣).

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts