The foundation of the "No Virus" movement rests on the assertion that viruses do not exist and have never been proven to exist. At face value, this claim challenges not only centuries of scientific observation but also the very processes through which we understand and validate biological phenomena. Yet, attempting to reason with those who cling to this belief often proves futile, not because the evidence is lacking, but because the belief itself becomes a fortress, impervious to facts.
In this discussion, I aim to dismantle the walls of that fortress—not by flooding it with evidence, which skeptics would simply dismiss—but by illuminating why the existence of viruses is an inescapable conclusion of reason itself. By relying on reductive reasoning, we can arrive at an understanding of why viruses must exist in the natural world, even before we point to microscopes or lab results.
This is not a presentation of physical proof. It’s not about lab experiments, electron micrographs, or genomic sequences. Instead, this exercise invites a sharpening of mental acuity—a test of logical consistency. It challenges us to use the tools of reason and deduction to engage with the fundamental question: Do viruses exist? If so, why must they? This exercise is less about convincing the staunch disbeliever and more about fortifying one's own reasoning skills and intellectual discipline. Let's explore how, even stripped of empirical tools, the existence of viruses becomes an undeniable reality through thought alone.