Quote: "The definition of a virus must include 'obligate intracellular parasite' – it must be infectious, replication competent and transmissible." – Mark Bailey
I'm amused by their insistence on abiding strictly by dictionary definitions! I looked up bacteriophage in the dictionary and it says "a virus that parasitizes a bacterium by infecting it and reproducing inside it." I wonder if they keep several dictionaries around so they can select the definition that best suits their purpose?
Actually, yes, they do. In my experience, they go to great lengths to twist definitions to fit their agenda. They also rely on papers from the 1800s while ignoring over a century of scientific evidence. So, in that regard, they’re definitely not being honest.
That’s precisely why they cling to the most basic definition of ‘isolation’ when discussing microbiology, using it as a tool to oversimplify and distort complex processes to fit their narrative.
Science is a discipline, created to elucidate our understanding of natural phenomena.
Understanding why people get sick is indeed an honourable venture, and should be encouraged.
You however, have systematically brought this venture into disrepute, due to the reification fallacy you choose not to acknowledge. The science you rely on as irrefutable evidence is easily refuted under serious peer review.
Based on flawed logic, you no longer believe that viruses cause disease, so your “discovery” of viruses appears to be meaningless.
According to your fluid interpretation of viruses, it wouldn’t surprise me if a new study would have you believe human cells are viruses?
Further, you constantly accuse people of that which you are guilty, but don’t have the courage to step back from your dogmatic vision.
Again, it’s unclear what you look to get out of your critical quest upon those with a reasonable accusation that there is insufficient evidence that viruses exist. If you seriously believe you are correct, you should ask yourself how beneficial your views could be for humanity (in my view, there is no difference in practical terms between your beliefs and a no virus position).
If however you are merely attempting to obfuscate the field to such an extent in order to reduce the pressure on virologists to conduct themselves in an ethical manner, you should question your morals.
"entire categories of viruses that have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature". Depends on what literature you read. Virology is a theory, not science. There's no physical observation of viruses, especially no observation of processes - so it's not science. Theories are supposed to be debated. It's not easy to get the truth - we know Google is political (i.e. censoring doctors and scientists not conforming to the political explanations of "covid"), and the editor of The Lancet stated 50% of everything in the journal is bad science.
Your comment is incoherent and presents a non sequitur. Virology is a scientific discipline supported by extensive evidence, not merely speculative, and not merely theory. If you claim otherwise, provide citations. Direct observation in science often involves inference through instruments and experiments, so demanding only direct sensory observation misunderstands scientific methodology—provide sources for that claim as well. The fact that theories are debated is fundamental to science and not controversial. References to Google are irrelevant in this context. Regarding The Lancet, the editor stated that some published studies may contain inaccuracies, not that entire scientific fields lack validity.
I'm amused by their insistence on abiding strictly by dictionary definitions! I looked up bacteriophage in the dictionary and it says "a virus that parasitizes a bacterium by infecting it and reproducing inside it." I wonder if they keep several dictionaries around so they can select the definition that best suits their purpose?
Actually, yes, they do. In my experience, they go to great lengths to twist definitions to fit their agenda. They also rely on papers from the 1800s while ignoring over a century of scientific evidence. So, in that regard, they’re definitely not being honest.
That’s precisely why they cling to the most basic definition of ‘isolation’ when discussing microbiology, using it as a tool to oversimplify and distort complex processes to fit their narrative.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve?
Science is a discipline, created to elucidate our understanding of natural phenomena.
Understanding why people get sick is indeed an honourable venture, and should be encouraged.
You however, have systematically brought this venture into disrepute, due to the reification fallacy you choose not to acknowledge. The science you rely on as irrefutable evidence is easily refuted under serious peer review.
Based on flawed logic, you no longer believe that viruses cause disease, so your “discovery” of viruses appears to be meaningless.
According to your fluid interpretation of viruses, it wouldn’t surprise me if a new study would have you believe human cells are viruses?
Further, you constantly accuse people of that which you are guilty, but don’t have the courage to step back from your dogmatic vision.
Again, it’s unclear what you look to get out of your critical quest upon those with a reasonable accusation that there is insufficient evidence that viruses exist. If you seriously believe you are correct, you should ask yourself how beneficial your views could be for humanity (in my view, there is no difference in practical terms between your beliefs and a no virus position).
If however you are merely attempting to obfuscate the field to such an extent in order to reduce the pressure on virologists to conduct themselves in an ethical manner, you should question your morals.
"entire categories of viruses that have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature". Depends on what literature you read. Virology is a theory, not science. There's no physical observation of viruses, especially no observation of processes - so it's not science. Theories are supposed to be debated. It's not easy to get the truth - we know Google is political (i.e. censoring doctors and scientists not conforming to the political explanations of "covid"), and the editor of The Lancet stated 50% of everything in the journal is bad science.
Your comment is incoherent and presents a non sequitur. Virology is a scientific discipline supported by extensive evidence, not merely speculative, and not merely theory. If you claim otherwise, provide citations. Direct observation in science often involves inference through instruments and experiments, so demanding only direct sensory observation misunderstands scientific methodology—provide sources for that claim as well. The fact that theories are debated is fundamental to science and not controversial. References to Google are irrelevant in this context. Regarding The Lancet, the editor stated that some published studies may contain inaccuracies, not that entire scientific fields lack validity.