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.
Reification becomes a fallacy only when you treat an idea as real without evidence. But in virology, viruses aren’t just ideas. You isolate them, image them, sequence them, and observe their effects on living systems. They’re not theoretical placeholders, they’re biological entities with measurable behavior. So, calling this “reification” is false.
There is no '"strict method." Cite this so-called method. You're assuming the “strict method” is the gold standard for all science. But methods aren’t one-size-fits-all. Science adjusts its tools based on the system it's studying. A physicist studying gravity won’t use the same tools as a virologist studying viruses. The moment you impose a rigid template on discovery, you stop discovery from happening.
To falsify something scientifically, you need more than critique—you need contradictory evidence that survives replication and review. Stone hasn’t shown this whatsoever. Declaring a field dead without meeting the threshold for falsification is just rebranding disbelief as logic.
Sure, they can. 2D images are how nearly all microscopy works, even in classical cell biology. You’re seeing structured data confirmed by controls, time-series, and orthogonal techniques. If you reject EM because it’s 2D, you’d have to throw out most of molecular biology, from bacteria to proteins.
Static snapshots illustrate viral processes quite well. How many people have seen neurotransmitters binding to receptors in real time? Or ribosomes translating mRNA? Scientific knowledge doesn’t rely on naked-eye observation. It relies on tracing processes through time-lapse, fluorescent tagging, and sequencing, among others, all of which are forms of observation adapted to the scale you're dealing with. The insistence on unaided “direct” viewing would disqualify nearly every molecular discovery ever made. And it's no surprise that No Virus has rejected much of this also, in order to stay consistent.
Only if you’re actually dealing with logical fallacies. Stone confuses hypothesis formation and inference with fallacious reasoning (such as assumption). There’s a difference between circular logic and building models based on converging evidence. The irony is that calling an entire field pseudoscience without rigorous counterevidence is itself an intellectual sleight of hand.
That’s not how exploratory science starts. You often begin with effects or patterns and work backward to identify causes. You don’t discover a virus by starting with a fully defined independent variable; you define the variable through the process of experimentation. Demanding prior certainty before investigation makes real discovery impossible.
I don’t understand why virologists wouldn’t want to strive for excellence? If virology is so well understood, why wouldn’t they desire to create a method that is so compelling that it is difficult to refute?
Currently, I could stand next to a virologist while conducting experiments and provide an alternative explanation for every one of their conclusions. Why would a virologist tolerate that, and not design a methodology that’s more robust?
But it’s not just in the lab where the hypothesis falls apart, it’s also in nature. A virologist can’t explain why sometimes a virus doesn’t behave like a virus. They just invent a new story that might explain it.
Hundreds of human experiments have been conducted to prove contagion, with the vast majority disproving it. But instead of abandoning the concept, virology continues on, dismissing the obvious evidence to the contrary.
But each to their own. I won’t lose sleep over people believing in a fictional bogeyman. I understand the flawed logic that virology uses to maintain profitability. But as more and more people learn about it, I suspect the economics behind it will fail..
I initially began my inquiry into health and disease over 17 years ago with the belief that contagion played no role in any form of illness. However, this view has now shifted gradually as I developed a much deeper understanding of cellular biology and the complex dynamics of the human body. I have now observed, that under certain biological circumstances, viruses can indeed transfer and be used by another person's cells, if applicable. Viruses, rather than being independent agents of destruction, exploit weakened or compromised cells, initiating infection through well-characterized mechanisms. In most cases, viral activity indirectly facilitates the removal of damaged or dysfunctional cells—serving, paradoxically, a kind of regulatory or cleansing function within biological systems. Viruses are cellular survival mechanisms.
The assertion by the "No Virus" movement that viruses do not exist is, frankly, one of the most baseless and scientifically untenable claims ever put forward. Viruses are ubiquitous in nature, intricately woven into the fabric of all ecosystems. Without them, the adaptive capacity of living organisms would be severely impaired, leading to their quick demise. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence now supports the hypothesis that viruses played a fundamental role in the origin of life itself, functioning as genetic catalysts and agents of horizontal gene transfer.
Viruses can be understood not merely as pathogenic agents but as cellular survival mechanisms shaped through deep evolutionary processes. Far from being solely destructive, viruses often act as mediators of genetic exchange, stress response, and adaptation. Some viral elements are embedded within host genomes and perform regulatory functions essential for development, immune modulation, and cellular repair. In this light, viruses are not external invaders but deeply integrated biological entities that have co-evolved with cellular life to serve, in many cases, as vectors of adaptation and survival under changing environmental pressures. That is why modern science is moving away from the once-held dogmatic view of viruses as the actual cause of disease. Modern science now understands, through their study, that viruses are a result of disease. The No Virus movement, in all its posturing, should understand the byproducts of disease and how extensively disease manifests and is detoxified from the body.
To deny the existence of viruses is logically equivalent to denying the existence of enzymes, proteins, or DNA—all of which are integral components of viral architecture. Viruses are not metaphysical constructs; they are assemblies of biological macromolecules. The rejection of their existence is not only scientifically indefensible but intellectually incoherent.
The "No Virus" movement has shown virtually no growth in its understanding over the past five years. That alone should speak volumes about where its priorities truly lie. In contrast, many researchers and independent thinkers have significantly deepened their knowledge during this time, continually reassessing assumptions in light of new data and perspectives. Yet the No Virus narrative remains frozen—repeating the same narrow talking points without any meaningful evolution, even after ample evidence and counterarguments have been presented by myself and many others. This intellectual stagnation reveals that their commitment is not to discovery or truth, but to the maintenance of a fixed ideological position for whatever agenda they have.
Thank you Jeff, absolutely brilliant comment. I am not a scientist or molecular biologist but I am deeply interested in the truth about the nature of our world. Your explanation helps me further my limited understanding.
What a profound statement. So, let me get this straight, you don’t get vaccinated and you believe - based on modern science - that viruses are not the actual cause of disease?
You do realise that in practical terms the difference between the “no virus” position and your position is essentially nothing, right?
I could agree with your position or continue with my position and my actions will not change.
I don’t believe there is anything more left to say?
Lynda, at this point in time you would probably stand in line each year to receive an injection and you have no idea where it came from or what it does to your body, but you get it anyway because someone you don’t know says it will protect you.
I on the other hand don’t need injections, I get everything I need from healthy food.
That’s a baseless assumption to make. Do you actually believe that people who believe viruses exist are all lining up to be vaccinated? I haven’t been vaccinated in 28 years. Lynda now says she hasn’t been vaccinated either. I know you want to place everyone in a categorical box, but life doesn’t work like that. People’s beliefs and choices are much more complex than simple categories.
Just because someone accepts the existence of viruses doesn’t mean they automatically agree with or participate in medical interventions like vaccination, or that they support the medical industry. In fact, it is usually quite the opposite. Most of us are vehemently against such interventions because we see the potential harm they can cause and recognize their unnecessary nature for most people striving to attain and maintain true health.
Many of us view vaccination as an unnecessary intervention in a world already burdened with far too many toxins. We believe vaccines only add to that toxic load and do nothing to address the underlying causes of disease and actually contribute to it. The focus should be on strengthening health and removing root causes, rather than relying on interventions that are only designed treat symptoms without truly solving the real underlying problems.
I did not, in 2021, receive any injections, nor will I do so in the future. I believe in bodily autonomy and the right to make my own informed choices. I have questioned and researched vaccines for over 40 years.
You assume that because I don’t belong to the no-virus Psy-op I support the medical industry. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.
“A cult is an organized group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies. Cults are usually headed by a powerful leader who isolates members from the rest of society.”
Does that not describe the no-virus crowd? Isolated from everyone else in the truth movement, led by powerful, charismatic leaders.
I agree, we have been lied to about SOME viruses and we have been lied to about contagion and many, many other things but to state that no viruses exist, at all, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I have had personal experiences as a child in the 60’s and as a mother, with measles, mumps, chickenpox and more. They are diseases caused by a pathogen, easily understood through observation. The no-virus proponents claim that it is all detox which makes their position completely ridiculous.
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 🤣).
"...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 🤣)."
That’s not how it actually works. What happens is that enzyme proteins on the virus bind to receptor proteins on the surface of a cell, due to their compatibility. This triggers endocytosis, allowing the virus to enter the cell with the cell’s cooperation. Once inside, the viral RNA or DNA is used by the host cell’s nucleus to transcribe and produce viral proteins, effectively creating copies of the virus. These copies are not identical—each one may carry small phenotypic mutations. These mutations can serve various biological roles within cells.
Most people aren't discovering anything of real value, as you claim, because they don’t fully understand viruses or virology. Instead, they’re misled by individuals who fail to present the actual science.
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.
𝟏. "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 (𝐞.𝐠., 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐲)..."
Reification becomes a fallacy only when you treat an idea as real without evidence. But in virology, viruses aren’t just ideas. You isolate them, image them, sequence them, and observe their effects on living systems. They’re not theoretical placeholders, they’re biological entities with measurable behavior. So, calling this “reification” is false.
𝟐. "𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝..."
There is no '"strict method." Cite this so-called method. You're assuming the “strict method” is the gold standard for all science. But methods aren’t one-size-fits-all. Science adjusts its tools based on the system it's studying. A physicist studying gravity won’t use the same tools as a virologist studying viruses. The moment you impose a rigid template on discovery, you stop discovery from happening.
𝟑. "𝐕𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬... 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐲𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝..."
To falsify something scientifically, you need more than critique—you need contradictory evidence that survives replication and review. Stone hasn’t shown this whatsoever. Declaring a field dead without meeting the threshold for falsification is just rebranding disbelief as logic.
𝟒. "𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐌 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐬 — 𝟐𝐃 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠..."
Sure, they can. 2D images are how nearly all microscopy works, even in classical cell biology. You’re seeing structured data confirmed by controls, time-series, and orthogonal techniques. If you reject EM because it’s 2D, you’d have to throw out most of molecular biology, from bacteria to proteins.
𝟓. "𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞..."
Static snapshots illustrate viral processes quite well. How many people have seen neurotransmitters binding to receptors in real time? Or ribosomes translating mRNA? Scientific knowledge doesn’t rely on naked-eye observation. It relies on tracing processes through time-lapse, fluorescent tagging, and sequencing, among others, all of which are forms of observation adapted to the scale you're dealing with. The insistence on unaided “direct” viewing would disqualify nearly every molecular discovery ever made. And it's no surprise that No Virus has rejected much of this also, in order to stay consistent.
𝟔. "𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞..."
Only if you’re actually dealing with logical fallacies. Stone confuses hypothesis formation and inference with fallacious reasoning (such as assumption). There’s a difference between circular logic and building models based on converging evidence. The irony is that calling an entire field pseudoscience without rigorous counterevidence is itself an intellectual sleight of hand.
𝟕. "𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐯𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞..."
That’s not how exploratory science starts. You often begin with effects or patterns and work backward to identify causes. You don’t discover a virus by starting with a fully defined independent variable; you define the variable through the process of experimentation. Demanding prior certainty before investigation makes real discovery impossible.
I don’t understand why virologists wouldn’t want to strive for excellence? If virology is so well understood, why wouldn’t they desire to create a method that is so compelling that it is difficult to refute?
Currently, I could stand next to a virologist while conducting experiments and provide an alternative explanation for every one of their conclusions. Why would a virologist tolerate that, and not design a methodology that’s more robust?
But it’s not just in the lab where the hypothesis falls apart, it’s also in nature. A virologist can’t explain why sometimes a virus doesn’t behave like a virus. They just invent a new story that might explain it.
Hundreds of human experiments have been conducted to prove contagion, with the vast majority disproving it. But instead of abandoning the concept, virology continues on, dismissing the obvious evidence to the contrary.
But each to their own. I won’t lose sleep over people believing in a fictional bogeyman. I understand the flawed logic that virology uses to maintain profitability. But as more and more people learn about it, I suspect the economics behind it will fail..
I initially began my inquiry into health and disease over 17 years ago with the belief that contagion played no role in any form of illness. However, this view has now shifted gradually as I developed a much deeper understanding of cellular biology and the complex dynamics of the human body. I have now observed, that under certain biological circumstances, viruses can indeed transfer and be used by another person's cells, if applicable. Viruses, rather than being independent agents of destruction, exploit weakened or compromised cells, initiating infection through well-characterized mechanisms. In most cases, viral activity indirectly facilitates the removal of damaged or dysfunctional cells—serving, paradoxically, a kind of regulatory or cleansing function within biological systems. Viruses are cellular survival mechanisms.
The assertion by the "No Virus" movement that viruses do not exist is, frankly, one of the most baseless and scientifically untenable claims ever put forward. Viruses are ubiquitous in nature, intricately woven into the fabric of all ecosystems. Without them, the adaptive capacity of living organisms would be severely impaired, leading to their quick demise. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence now supports the hypothesis that viruses played a fundamental role in the origin of life itself, functioning as genetic catalysts and agents of horizontal gene transfer.
Viruses can be understood not merely as pathogenic agents but as cellular survival mechanisms shaped through deep evolutionary processes. Far from being solely destructive, viruses often act as mediators of genetic exchange, stress response, and adaptation. Some viral elements are embedded within host genomes and perform regulatory functions essential for development, immune modulation, and cellular repair. In this light, viruses are not external invaders but deeply integrated biological entities that have co-evolved with cellular life to serve, in many cases, as vectors of adaptation and survival under changing environmental pressures. That is why modern science is moving away from the once-held dogmatic view of viruses as the actual cause of disease. Modern science now understands, through their study, that viruses are a result of disease. The No Virus movement, in all its posturing, should understand the byproducts of disease and how extensively disease manifests and is detoxified from the body.
To deny the existence of viruses is logically equivalent to denying the existence of enzymes, proteins, or DNA—all of which are integral components of viral architecture. Viruses are not metaphysical constructs; they are assemblies of biological macromolecules. The rejection of their existence is not only scientifically indefensible but intellectually incoherent.
The "No Virus" movement has shown virtually no growth in its understanding over the past five years. That alone should speak volumes about where its priorities truly lie. In contrast, many researchers and independent thinkers have significantly deepened their knowledge during this time, continually reassessing assumptions in light of new data and perspectives. Yet the No Virus narrative remains frozen—repeating the same narrow talking points without any meaningful evolution, even after ample evidence and counterarguments have been presented by myself and many others. This intellectual stagnation reveals that their commitment is not to discovery or truth, but to the maintenance of a fixed ideological position for whatever agenda they have.
Thank you Jeff, absolutely brilliant comment. I am not a scientist or molecular biologist but I am deeply interested in the truth about the nature of our world. Your explanation helps me further my limited understanding.
What a profound statement. So, let me get this straight, you don’t get vaccinated and you believe - based on modern science - that viruses are not the actual cause of disease?
You do realise that in practical terms the difference between the “no virus” position and your position is essentially nothing, right?
I could agree with your position or continue with my position and my actions will not change.
I don’t believe there is anything more left to say?
"No Virus" doesn't believe viruses exist. I do.
You belong to a cult.
Lynda, at this point in time you would probably stand in line each year to receive an injection and you have no idea where it came from or what it does to your body, but you get it anyway because someone you don’t know says it will protect you.
I on the other hand don’t need injections, I get everything I need from healthy food.
Which one of us appears to belong to a cult?
That’s a baseless assumption to make. Do you actually believe that people who believe viruses exist are all lining up to be vaccinated? I haven’t been vaccinated in 28 years. Lynda now says she hasn’t been vaccinated either. I know you want to place everyone in a categorical box, but life doesn’t work like that. People’s beliefs and choices are much more complex than simple categories.
Just because someone accepts the existence of viruses doesn’t mean they automatically agree with or participate in medical interventions like vaccination, or that they support the medical industry. In fact, it is usually quite the opposite. Most of us are vehemently against such interventions because we see the potential harm they can cause and recognize their unnecessary nature for most people striving to attain and maintain true health.
Many of us view vaccination as an unnecessary intervention in a world already burdened with far too many toxins. We believe vaccines only add to that toxic load and do nothing to address the underlying causes of disease and actually contribute to it. The focus should be on strengthening health and removing root causes, rather than relying on interventions that are only designed treat symptoms without truly solving the real underlying problems.
I did not, in 2021, receive any injections, nor will I do so in the future. I believe in bodily autonomy and the right to make my own informed choices. I have questioned and researched vaccines for over 40 years.
You assume that because I don’t belong to the no-virus Psy-op I support the medical industry. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.
“A cult is an organized group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies. Cults are usually headed by a powerful leader who isolates members from the rest of society.”
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cult-5078234
Does that not describe the no-virus crowd? Isolated from everyone else in the truth movement, led by powerful, charismatic leaders.
I agree, we have been lied to about SOME viruses and we have been lied to about contagion and many, many other things but to state that no viruses exist, at all, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I have had personal experiences as a child in the 60’s and as a mother, with measles, mumps, chickenpox and more. They are diseases caused by a pathogen, easily understood through observation. The no-virus proponents claim that it is all detox which makes their position completely ridiculous.
I would just refer you to Jeff’s comment below;
“That is why modern science is moving away from the once-held dogmatic view of viruses as the actual cause of disease.”
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 🤣).
"...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 🤣)."
That’s not how it actually works. What happens is that enzyme proteins on the virus bind to receptor proteins on the surface of a cell, due to their compatibility. This triggers endocytosis, allowing the virus to enter the cell with the cell’s cooperation. Once inside, the viral RNA or DNA is used by the host cell’s nucleus to transcribe and produce viral proteins, effectively creating copies of the virus. These copies are not identical—each one may carry small phenotypic mutations. These mutations can serve various biological roles within cells.
Most people aren't discovering anything of real value, as you claim, because they don’t fully understand viruses or virology. Instead, they’re misled by individuals who fail to present the actual science.