Debunking The Funk
Discover more from ViroLIEgy Newsletter
I've been asked numerous times to participate in debates on the validity of virology and germ theory over the course of the past few years. I have taken part in many conversations over that time on Facebook and other platforms, attempting to have honest discussions with people claiming to be virologists, biologists, scientists, doctors and educators. However, one thing became very clear during these exchanges that really soured me on this entire experience. It is very difficult to have an honest conversation with people who are emotionally invested and attached to their education, training, and their chosen professions. Admittedly, these people have put in a lot of money, time, and effort into learning their particular field. Thus, they do not take too kindly to those who challenge them on their long-held beliefs. I can understand this mindset as it is very difficult to even entertain that what one has spent a great deal of time on could actually be fraudulent. I am well aware that myself and others who expose the flaws of germ theory and virology are a threat to these people, not only to their careers, but also to their egos.
It comes as no surprise, then, that during these exchanges, cognitive dissonance quickly sets in once these people are challenged to think outside of the box that they have been placed into through their chosen indoctrination program. This tends to lead to very emotional responses and outbursts as many engage in personal attacks in order to defend their positions rather than basing their arguments on logic and sound reasoning. More often than not, they will engage in numerous logical fallacies to defend their position. For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that are based on poor or faulty logic. Resorting to logical fallacies undermines the argument by bringing up irrelevant points in order to avoid direct refutation. Essentially, they are invalid arguments that can easily be identified by a lack evidence to support the claim that is made.
One of the most common fallacies that we see the germ theory defenders’ resort to regularly in these exchanges are known as ad hominem attacks. This is where one focuses on arguing about the character of the person presenting the opposing position. They may attack their opponent’s motive, background, or other personal attributes. This is a logically fallacious way of attempting to discredit the other side without ever having to argue against the position and information that is presented. It is usually an emotionally charged attack that is dismissive and dishonest. A simple example would be this comment I received when discussing antibody specificity. I supplied a link to an article of mine discussing the lack of specificity for these theoretical entities and this was the response I received in return:
“What information? Your blog is nothing more than a collection of purposeful misunderstanding of basic science, Olympic level hubris, and nonsense.
I can't believe you would actually promote something so profoundly stupid.”
Instead of replying directly to any of the points I highlighted within the article with a logical response, this person decided to attack me to make my argument appear weak while he did not present any valid evidence or reasoning backing up his claims.
If this tactic does not work, a very popular trick that they will utilize is to try and shift the burden of proof off of themselves and onto those who challenge their claim that “viruses” have been scientifically proven to exist. This most often comes across with statements such as “You can't prove viruses do not exist,” or “Show me the scientific paper that proves viruses do not exist.” In an exchange with another person, I asked for the scientific evidence that pathogenic “viruses” exist. This was the response I received:
“The onus is yours to disprove that viruses cause illness.”
This is logically fallacious reasoning for many reasons. For one, the burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim to provide the evidence that supports what they are saying is true. It is not on those who are challenging the positive claim to prove those making it wrong with contrary evidence. All one is obligated to do is to show the flaws within their evidence and reasoning. It is the responsibility of the person making the positive claims to defend what they say with evidence.
The other reason this is logically fallacious is that one cannot prove absolute universal non-existence. Often, we will see responses such as this demanding that we do so:
“You made a claim: "viruses don't exist". You prove it.”
If a person claims that a unicorn exists, it is not on anyone else to prove that the unicorn does not exist. There is no evidence that can be used to prove the non-existence of something imaginary. The person who is making the claim that the unicorn exists must present valid evidence showing that unicorns do, in fact, exist rather than demand that someone else needs to prove the non-existence of their fictional entity.
“Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent.”
Once it is clear that these tricks will not work, a few more common tactics tend to emerge. If the person making the positive claim has the necessary credentials behind their name, they will often appeal to themselves as an authority figure on the subject and claim that anyone challenging without the same credentials is unqualified to speak about or understand what is being discussed. This was recently seen with a scientist who is supposedly on the “No virus” side who engaged repeatedly in this fallacy (as well as many other ones) when simple questions were posed to him by me and others:
“That will confirm that people talking here don’t have credentials and cannot handle scientific questioning and discussion from people with credentials.”
If they do not have the necessary credentials, an appeal to an authority figure who does will normally take place. This is a way to avoid presenting valid evidence showing that their positive claim is true. They will either say it's true based upon their own expertise or claim it's true because someone else who is considered an “expert” agreed with their position. This, again, is logically fallacious reasoning that does not give them the right to avoid presenting valid evidence backing up their own positive claim or that of the “expert” they appeal to.
Tied into the appeal to authority is the appeal to consensus, which is an argument that is commonly made that states that because more people believe something to be true, this means that it is true. Just the other day, a person randomly brought up electromagnetic wave theory in a red herring attempt (irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information) after I accused him of elephant hurling references to studies without providing any context. He claimed that the abundance of papers and the scientific consensus meant that it was true:
Read all those papers in their totality
Again, theory, such as electromagnetic waves, is accepted scientific consensus by the scientific community based on the totality of evidence aka many experiments.
Of course, this once again does not absolve the one making the positive claim from providing valid evidence and pointing to how it is relevant, even if many people also make the same claim. They must all present the proof that shows their beliefs to be true. If one engages in this fallacy, it is clear that they are intellectually lazy and willing to accept something as true without demanding proof.
There are many other logical fallacies that these people tend to resort to that showcase their lack of critical thinking skills and sound reasoning. This includes affirming the consequent, where it is stated that if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent must be true. A simple way of looking at this is that the person is claiming that an observed effect proves the presumed cause to be true. In virology, this fallacy shows up regularly with arguments supporting the use of cell cultures as proof for the existence of a “virus.”
This is logically fallacious as the observation of an effect does not prove a cause. A rather funny example for this fallacy is as follows:
Example #2:
If it’s brown, flush it down.
I flushed it down.
Therefore, it was brown.
Explanation: No! I did not have to follow the, “if it’s yellow, let it mellow” rule -- in fact, if I did follow that rule I would probably still be single. The stated rule is simply, “if it’s brown” (the antecedent), then (implied), “flush it down” (the consequent). From this, we cannot imply that we can ONLY flush it down if it is brown. That is a mistake -- a logical fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent
A final fallacy that I want to point out that is frequently utilized in these debates is called begging the question, a.k.a. circular reasoning. This is when the conclusion is assumed within one of the premises of the argument.
Example #1:
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.
Explanation: The claim, “paranormal activity is real” is supported by the premise, “I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.” The premise presupposes, or assumes, that the claim, “paranormal activity is real” is already true.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question
A great visual description of this fallacy in action was provided by Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Alec Zeck in the image below.
These are but a few of the fallacies that are regularly seen during these conversations. While logical fallacies make it very difficult to have an intellectually honest discussion with another person, I will normally continue conversing while pointing these fallacies out upon seeing them being used. However, there are two things I will not tolerate that will immediately torpedo any chance of having a respectful discourse. I will not be subjected to ad hominem attacks against my character in place of valid arguments against my position and I will not be paraded with insults and condescending remarks. Sadly, it seems that most of the time, these discussions often head into the gutter rather quickly.
As this has repeatedly been my experience in these types of engagements, I had no desire to really participate in these conversations anymore. However, once Twitter became more “friendly” due to the Elon Musk takeover, I was convinced by family and friends to wade into the cesspool that is the Twitterverse. I did so fully expecting to be sucked right back into these “debates” as I knew from the experiences of friends and colleagues what types of interactions awaited me upon entering. However, I was encouraged to create a Twitter account as it is another avenue to get the message across to a broader audience and to interact with other like-minded people. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for those who staunchly defend germ theory to find me and begin challenging the information I was presenting. While I do not mind being challenged when the discourse is respectful, the majority of these people once again employed the same tactics I outlined above, thus stifling any chance at a productive conversation. A few of these interactions did lead to further research on my part and resulted in articles that I feel were very valuable. Sadly, most of these “debates” end up going nowhere and result in frustration and a waste of valuable time.
In any case, I feel compelled to continue engaging in these Twitter “debates” as I truly feel that we can gain a lot of valuable insight into the minds and attitudes of those who are currently leading the “scientific” research conducted today. Or at least, I will continue doing so as long as there is a chance at an honest and respectful debate. However, experience has shown me that these types of interactions are rare. A recent example of this can be seen from my correspondence with one of the people who appears to be an up-and-coming “leader” in his field by the name of Dan Wilson.
Mr. Wilson is a biologist who has his own podcast called Debunk the Funk. Participating in a debate with Mr. Wilson was something that was repeatedly requested of me over the last year. I was invited by a reader who wanted to set something up between myself and Dan on his program. I was sent a link to one of his videos which dealt with Dr. Sam Bailey and the rabies “virus.” What I saw immediately was someone who was condescending and dismissive. Mr. Wilson referred to Dr. Bailey as a “doctor” in quotes. He implied that she is a lying grifter who is attempting to easily fool people so that she can make money. He claimed that she is a lazy researcher who does not read. He mocked Dr. Bailey by wondering how “dumb” her alternative explanations for rabies would be. Needless to say, I declined having any sort of interaction with Mr. Wilson as I knew that doing so would not result in a fruitful and intellectually honest exchange. While I do not like linking to Mr. Wilson's material, you will be able to see from this 13-minute “rebuttal” exactly why others and I do not care to engage with him:
As fate would have it, Mr. Wilson's friend Thomas Baldwin, who goes by the Twitter handle Sense_Strand, found me on Twitter and started requesting that I join his “space” to debate them. From my understanding, this is a live video feed on Twitter where Baldwin and Wilson attempt to gang up on those who participate using the same tactics discussed above. I was not interested, and I ignored his repeated calls. However, I eventually found myself in a discussion with him over the lack of scientific evidence for “viruses.” This exchange eventually led to my interacting with Mr. Wilson. I am presenting these exchanges for everyone to see with additional commentary. See if you can spot the logically fallacious tactics employed by both men as well as the insults and condescending remarks that make it impossible to have an honest and respectful conversation. This is the attitude of academia to anyone who challenges their belief system. Hopefully, we can all learn from these exchanges.
This first exchange is with Thomas Baldwin, a.k.a. Sense_Strand. After a long conversation with him about the scientific method, it became clear to me that Mr. Baldwin's understanding was, putting it politely, somewhat lacking. Ironically, what you will see is that Mr. Baldwin immediately engages in an ad hominem attack by claiming my understanding was “childish and wrong” without attempting to explain why. As it was an informative discussion and provided valuable insight into the mind of a person in the sciences who has published papers, I decided to collect the Tweets into a thread on Twitter so that others could see how those in the science field attempt to argue against the scientific method.
I am doing this thread to showcase the intellectual dishonesty displayed by many in the sciences. In a recent exchange, @sense_strand accused me of having a "childish and wrong" understanding of the scientific method. However, he would not explain why. Shocking, I know. 😒
Mr. Baldwin accused me of having my own criteria of the scientific method.
However, Mr. Baldwin had previously agreed with me on the steps of the scientific method. Thus, he understood that it was not "my criteria."
As he claimed to publish papers adhering to the scientific method, I challenged Mr. Baldwin to show me where he did so. However, for some odd reason, he was reluctant to provide a straight answer. 🤔
Fortunately, after many attempts to get Mr. Baldwin to supply his papers, he finally agreed. He then provided me with what he felt was his most relevant paper.
https://academic.oup.com/plcell/article/20/3/739/6092239?login=false
In order to see how his paper adhered to the scientific method, I started by simply asking Mr. Baldwin to point out the observed natural phenomenon. This is the first step of the SM and should be the easiest to satisfy. However, he was once again reluctant to answer.
Of course, I insisted, and Mr. Baldwin obliged. Unfortunately for him, it was immediately clear why he was originally hesitant to answer. Let's just say that his "observed natural phenomenon" was neither observed nor natural. 😉
Obviously, I had to understand how Mr. Baldwin thought that what he had put forward was a natural phenomenon that he had observed before experimentation. Unfortunately, all I received in response was a copy/paste of his previous tweet.
@pgunnels1 also challenged Mr. Baldwin to explain himself and he received a rather ludicrous and laughable response in return.
Needless to say, Mr. Baldwin's answer was not satisfactory. I tried numerous times to get him to answer my original question, but alas, to no avail. I gave Mr. Baldwin one final chance, which he predictably ignored. Thus, I have no other choice than to accept his concession.
Mr. Baldwin argued that I did not understand the SM, which he claimed to successfully apply. However, his paper couldn't even satisfy the very first step of the scientific method. He didn't even understand that what he had put forward was not an observed natural phenomenon.
It is safe to say that Mr. Baldwin is, in fact, the one who has a "childish and wrong" understanding of the scientific method. Instead of applying the scientific method as proclaimed, it is rather clear that Mr. Baldwin, in fact, adheres to the pseudoscientific method. 🤷♂️
While I thought that the above exchange would have been my last with Mr. Baldwin, it was not as he graciously decided to present me with even further evidence that he did not understand the scientific method. Mr. Baldwin took the outline of the scientific method that I supplied him with and attempted to apply it to virology. Unfortunately for him, Mr. Baldwin made some pretty glaring mistakes as you will see in the thread. For one, his independent variable (i.e. the cause) was not purified and isolated “viral” particles but instead listed as materials from tissues taken from a diseased host. He claimed that the IV did not need to be purified and isolated before experimentation. In other words, he was stating that one did not need to show that the “viral” particles exist in the fluids first in order to experiment with them, which is false as the IV must be able to be varied and manipulated during experimentation. His dependent variable (i.e. the effect) was listed as “healthy host” which obviously is not the effect (i.e. symptoms of disease) one would be looking to recreate. His control was listed as the media used, which is incorrect as the control should be fluids from a healthy host treated and inoculated in exactly the same manner as those from the “infected” host. You will see these issues and more in this thread which were shocking to see from one said to be a scientist.
I am doing an addendum on the scientific method debate with @sense_strand. If you recall, Mr. Baldwin stated that my understanding was "childish and wrong" and that he applied the SM to his papers. Below is an image he created in an attempt to show how virology adheres to the SM.
Notice for the independent variable, Mr. Baldwin did not list purified & isolated "viral" particles. He listed unpurified materials assumed to contain a "virus." This is not a valid IV if one is attempting to show specific "viral" particles are pathogenic.
As he was missing a valid IV, which must exist BEFORE experimentation, I asked Mr. Baldwin where the purification and isolation step occurred. He claimed isolation was not important. When I challenged him on this, he conceded that this would come later, AFTER experimentation.
Mr. Baldwin's outline did not have a valid IV as there was no proof that any "viral" particles existed within the materials used. On top of that, the IV must be present to vary and manipulate in order to determine cause-and-effect. However, this is where another problem arises.
For the dependent variable, i.e. effect, Mr. Baldwin listed "Healthy Host." However, this is wrong as a healthy host is not an effect. The effect is the specific symptoms of disease the researchers are trying to recreate through the use of the independent variable, i.e. "virus."
Of course, I had to point out this glaring error to Mr. Baldwin. However, upon doing so, he asked me what I thought the DV is. I explained that it is the effect that one is looking for, i.e. the symptoms of disease.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Baldwin would not accept that what he had listed was not an effect. Instead, he tried to argue semantics, even though he agreed the EFFECT is on the host, i.e. not the host. The effect would also not be "healthy" as that was not the observed phenomenon.
After going back and forth on semantics, I asked Mr. Baldwin to use "healthy host" as his effect in his hypothesis to see how it worked out for him. He proceeded to use it as the null hypothesis.
In other words, Mr. Baldwin gave me the hypothesis that states that there is NO cause-and-effect relationship between the variables, which is not the point of the experiment.
Thus, it is clear to me that Mr. Baldwin:
Does not know what an observed natural phenomenon is.
Does not know what an independent variable is.
Does not know what a dependent variable is.
Does not know the difference between alternative/null hypotheses.
As a result of these interactions with Mr. Baldwin, his buddy Mr. Wilson eventually found his way into our conversations to help defend their chosen profession. They both tried numerous times to get me to join their Twitter “space” in order to discuss the topic. However, I had no desire to be ganged up on in their “space” and I wanted to keep our conversation where people could read it. A written debate is much more conducive to presenting evidence and papers where we can actually look at and read the materials supplied in order to have an informed and honest conversation.
In my interaction with Mr. Wilson below, you will see someone who makes a claim that he has very specific evidence that I asked for and then fail to back it up. Instead, he provided the exact opposite of the evidence that he claimed existed and acted as if it was sufficient. Dan attempted to elephant hurl random links, yet I made it clear that I would not sift through his papers in order to find the evidence he claimed existed for him. When Dan finally decided to provide specific papers that he felt met the criteria I asked him for, it was very clear that Dan did not have the goods.
Another scientist, & yet another example of intellectual dishonesty. This time from @Debunk_the_Funk, who I asked a very simple question of. I wanted to know whether or not evidence for "viruses" meeting very specific requirements existed. Dan said that it did and that he had it.
The evidence I asked for was simple:
1. Purification and isolation of the assumed "viral" particles directly from the fluids of animals or humans, which is confirmed to contain only the "virus" via electron microscope imaging.
2. No cell culturing. Briefly, this process is the addition of the unpurified fluids to a monkey kidney cell mixed with kidney toxic antibiotics, antifungals, fetal cow blood, and other chemical additives. The exact opposite of purified and isolated.
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/05/the-case-against-cell-cultures/
When I asked Dan to provide the evidence that he said existed, he kept trying to get me on his podcast instead. I insisted that he share the evidence with me on Twitter for everyone to see. He then provided a link to his own video and told me to search his links.
I explained that I would not search through his links to find his evidence for him and that Dan needed to start by providing me with one paper containing the evidence he stated existed. He then sent me a link to this paper.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd5223
Unfortunately for Dan, the paper he supplied passaged the "virus" in tissue cell cultures. In other words, it completely failed at showing evidence of the assumed "viral" particles without the use of cell culturing.
Dan did not like that I denied his cell culture evidence. However, no culturing is exactly what I asked him for, as I clearly stated "before cell culturing." He said that this evidence without culturing was in the paper. It was not. 🤷♂️
Rather than show me how the papers he linked had the evidence he claimed that they did, Dan kept trying to get me to chat with him on his space. Apparently, our public chat on Twitter wasn't good enough. However, I declined and asked that he back up his positive claim.
For some strange reason, Dan continued to try and take the conversation elsewhere in an attempt to argue for cell culture. Thus, it was fairly clear to me that Mr. Wilson knew that the evidence he claimed existed without culturing did, in fact, not exist within any of his papers.
Dan kept insisting on the use of cell cultures even though he once again claimed that one can obtain a "viral isolate" without culturing. However, Dan continued to fail to produce said evidence.
I insisted that Dan show me a single paper with the evidence he claimed existed. As these people usually do, Dan then elephant hurled a bunch of links without highlighting how his links met the criteria we were discussing.
Dan's first link, unsurprisingly, was a spectacular fail. Not only was it not a study, but it was a genomic database. It didn't even come close to providing the evidence he said existed.
https://nextstrain.org
His second link was a study that used cardiac tissue. No purification techniques were described, and the EM images were not of only the assumed "viral" particles. They were of particles "compatible with crown-shaped SARS-CoV-2," i.e. point and declare.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7767122/#!po=20.7143
Dan's 3rd link was the same tissue cell culture example that he attempted to use previously, once again failing to meet the "cell culture free" claim that he made.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd5223
When I pointed out that none of the links he had provided fulfilled the criteria we discussed, Dan erroneously continued to state that they do.
Dan repeatedly denied that his evidence was insufficient...without ever showing how his links fulfilled the criteria he claimed that they did.
I asked him to point out the evidence fulfilling our discussed criteria within a single one of the papers he provided. Failure to do so would be taken as evidence that he was conceding that he was unable to do so.
Dan conceded. 🤷♂️
By being unable to show purified and isolated "viral" particles directly from the fluids, Dan admits that there is no direct evidence the assumed "viral" particles created after culturing were ever in a sick host to begin with. They are only ever seen after cell culturing.
Oddly enough, after failing in the above exchange to provide the evidence he stated existed, Dan eventually produced a paper that he said showed particles claimed to be “viruses” in the fluids without culturing. Why he failed to provide this during our discussion is beyond me. I only found out about it when someone tagged me in a response. This is the paper for anyone interested:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6268658/
However, while Dan and Thomas felt that this paper was the holy grail that fulfilled the burden Dan had tasked himself with in our previous exchange, it actually failed right off the bat. In the abstract of the paper, it is admitted that the images are of partially purified samples.
“Samples were clarified by centrifugation, pelleted in the EM-90 rotor directly to Formvar-coated copper grids, and stained with 1.5% sodium phosphotungstate. Virus counts and endpoint titrations of serial dilutions of partially purified preparations of poliovirus, SAIl rotavirus, herpes simplex virus, and vaccinia virus showed an increase of ca. 1.5 log1o to 3.0 logio over the virus titers of unconcentrated preparations of the same material.”
This is a problem as pointed out in my exchange with Mr. Baldwin:
Why we can't have rational conversations anymore. 🤷♂️
Partially: not completely
Purified: the act or process of making something pure and free of any contaminating, debasing, or foreign elements
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction
Despite the fact that there is no statement of complete purification and isolation anywhere within the paper, Dan insisted that he had shown evidence of “viral” particles taken directly from the fluids. However, he failed to realize that EM images of partially purified particles is not evidence that the particles are indeed “viruses.” In fact, within the very paper itself, it is admitted that many particles that were claimed to be “viruses” were possibly false-positive results of particles which looked exactly like “viruses” but were instead either artifacts, results of differences in staining techniques, excess debris, or observer error:
“Alternatively, they may represent false-positive detections of entero-like virus particles after the EM-90 preparation which are artifacts. One entero-like virus was detected after both the EM-90 preparation and the rapid procedure, but no virus was cultivated. The extra detection of one entero-like virus and one rotavirus after the rapid procedure may reflect differences in staining results, excess debris in the concentrated specimen, or observer error.”
There was no experimentation whatsoever in the paper proving the particles claimed to be “viruses” were pathogenic replication competent parasites capable of producing disease. All Dan had was images of partially purified fluids open to subjective interpretation. Oddly, Dan admitted that his one paper was not enough and tried to appeal to the entire literature as satisfaction of his original requirement.
However, when pressed, Dan backtracked and claimed that his one paper was scientific proof, even though he again claimed that the entire literature needed to be taken into consideration in order for his paper to be valid. 🤷♂️
When I reiterated that there were no purified particles as well as no proof of pathogenicity, Mr. Baldwin jumped in and complained that purifying and isolating the “virus” particles and proving pathogenicity in one paper was somehow an impossible standard.
When I challenged Mr. Baldwin on his odd claim, he fell back on the excuse that there are not enough “virus” particles within the fluids of a sick host in order to prove pathogenicity.
After I sought clarification to make sure that I was not misrepresenting his illogical claim, Mr. Baldwin then repeated his comment that somehow, in an infected body that is said to produce at least 200 million “viral” particles per sneeze, there is not enough “virus” present to purify, isolate, and prove pathogenicity. For some reason, he never responded to my last comment pointing out the ridiculousness in his illogical conclusion. 🤷♂️
This interaction with Mr. Baldwin ultimately led to my having to block him after he repeatedly resorted to insults and refused to answer me directly and instead spammed his “space” link over and over again.
Eventually, I found myself in another encounter with Mr. Wilson after I pointed out to a different user that they did not understand the pseudoscientific narrative about how much “virus” is necessary to produce infection and disease.
Dan took issue with the fact that the source I supplied was in regard to an insect “virus” rather than mammalian “viruses.”
Thus, I supplied a different source stating that only one airborne particle of mammalian "viruses” was necessary to cause infection and disease.
However, Dan took issue with it being a theoretical model (which, ironically, is all that virology and immunology are) and oddly argued that the airborne particles could theoretically contain many “viruses.”
I pointed out that we were discussing single particles, but Dan insisted that my sources were wrong and that I was “brain dead.” It's fun to get them to argue against their own pseudoscience as they get really worked up. 😉
As I was having some fun with Dan, I decided to see if he would take issue with “norovirus” where it is stated by the CDC that only a few particles can cause infection and disease.
Predictably, Dan took issue with the fact that it stated “few particles.” He was adamant that he wanted pseudoscience fiction claiming only one “viral” particle that is not an insect “virus” that can cause infection and disease.
Thus, I provided Dan with a mammalian “virus” in rabies that is said to only need one “viral” particle to cause infection and disease.
However, Dan once again took issue with the “theoretical” aspect of his pseudoscience fiction, ignoring the fact that it is all theoretical (or more accurately hypothetical) as no “virus” has ever been scientifically proven.
As Dan was being very picky, I decided to present him with smallpox, where it is clearly stated by the CDC study that the infectious dose is likely one “viral” particle.
Dan accused me of not understanding what one “viral” particle meant in regard to infection even though it clearly states in the CDC source that only one “viral” particle is necessary for infection.
I decided to give it the ol’ college try and provide Dan with a final source, once again clearly stating that only one “viral” particle is necessary for infection and disease. This time it was in regard to Ebola.
Dan predictably accused me of not understanding what I shared even though it does not take a pseudoscientist to understand what “exposure to just one viral particle” means.
As Dan threw in every excuse he could in order to deny his own pseudoscientific literature, I asked him to provide a paper where it is demonstrated that a single “viral” particle is said not to cause infection and disease, against what the CDC, OSHA, and other sources stated.
Of course, Dan continued to resort to insults to cover up his inadequate responses.
When I pointed out that his studies did not examine whether a single “virus” particle could cause infection and disease, Dan responded with yet another insult. These interactions truly show the character of those we are dealing with.
After various insults, I warned Dan that if he continued with this disrespectful behavior, our conversation would be over and that he would be blocked.
I tried another time to get Dan to share a study and he responded with another insult instead, referring to me again as “brain dead Mikey.”
It was clear to me that Dan was arguing against his own narrative in an attempt to try and make it look like I was wrong about their fiction. Thus, I pondered whether Dan's denial of their statements meant that the CDC, OSHA, and the other sources were just making things up.
Dan has a bad habit of resorting to insults like “brain dead Mikey” in order to cover up his inadequate responses. Thus, I asked him to respond directly to my question and warned him against calling me “brain dead Mikey.”
Dan tried to again hide behind the excuse that the sources I shared were speaking theoretically. However, whether speaking theoretically or not, this was Dan’s admittance that the CDC, OSHA, and the other sources did state that only one “viral” particle is necessary for infection and disease. Thus, this theoretical concept is a part of their pseudoscientific fictional narrative as I had stated all along. While he avoided calling me “brain dead Mikey” this time, Dan came up with a new moniker in “snowflake Mikey.” I had to clarify one last time that any further insults would end our conversation.
Dan tried a different tactic and stated that the sources I provided only made the claim that a single “viral” particle could cause infection and disease due to regulatory reasons. Yep. 🤷♂️
Dan insisted that the sources I shared only said what they did due to policy and not empirical science, once again failing to understand that there is no empirical science being done in virology as the entire field is nothing but an unproven theoretical explanation of disease. A part of that fictional narrative, at least according to the CDC and OSHA, is that one “viral” particle is enough to cause infection and disease. Dan was consistently showing that he did not understand his own pseudoscientific fiction.
Predictably, Dan avoided providing direct answers.
As he would not directly answer me, I had no choice but to conclude that even though he argued against it, Dan agreed with the CDC, OSHA, and other sources that it is theoretically possible for a single “viral” particle to cause infection and disease.
Dan waved the white flag of surrender and signaled to me that he wanted our conversation to end by doing what he does best, hurling insults instead of supplying direct answers and adequate proof backing up his position. 🤷♂️
I finally gave Dan the sweet release he begged me for over and over again.
Hopefully, through these exchanges, you can see the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. Unfortunately, there is a severe lack of critical thinking, sound reasoning, and logic. Both Dan and Thomas are supposed to be scientists and neither one is capable of demonstrating how virology adheres to the scientific method. Neither one understands that the independent variable (i.e. the assumed “viral” particles) must be purified, isolated, and shown to exist prior to experimentation. Neither one will admit that they do not understand that their own pseudoscientific fictional narrative states that the assumed “viral” particles can not be purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a sick host and, thus, can only be found in cultures. This is something that is even admitted by the CDC where it was stated that it is an impossibility to purify and isolate the “viral” particles directly from the fluids as “viruses” are said to require a host cell in order to replicate:
Thus, it is clear that virology cannot adhere to the scientific method as there is no verified independent variable prior to experimentation and it is, by definition, pseudoscience. Neither one is willing to be intellectually honest and remain respectful in a conversation. They both resort to insults, logical fallacies, and strong-arm tactics in order to try and claim victory. Sadly, others and I have witnessed that many in academia display this exact same pattern of behavior. They only seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing, as demonstrated in this recent interaction with a woman who claimed to have the means to refute us via performing the proper control experiments but decided it was a waste of time. She would rather trade insults on Twitter.
This type of attitude means that it is nearly impossible to engage in an open and honest dialogue as they will attempt to drag us down to their level. They will waste our valuable time by trapping us in a seemingly endless loop of circular arguments. However, we need to resist the temptation to strike back at them emotionally and fall into playing their childish games. I have always felt that those who act like Dan and Thomas will always look worse by comparison to the outside observer if we decide to take the high road in response. We do not need to engage in an insult war with them. All we need to do is simply ask those defending virology and germ theory to provide the scientific evidence that proves their positive claim:
Do you have evidence of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal without culturing that are then confirmed via EM?
Do you have evidence that these purified and isolated particles were proven pathogenic naturally via adherence to the scientific method?
It is obvious that they cannot provide the necessary scientific evidence that will fulfill their burden. They will get mad. They will lash out. They will throw out insults and ad hominem attacks. Once this occurs, walk away as the conversation is over. As both Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Wilson showed, they have no legs left to stand on at that point. They have already lost the battle and are well on their way to losing the war. Allow Dan and Co. to debunk themselves. They are very good at it.
Debunking The Funk
This joke explains the hierarchy of scientific truth:
A mathematician once advised his students: "If you understand something and can prove it, then publish it in a mathematics journal. If you understand something, but can't prove it, then publish it in a physics journal. And if you don't understand something and can't prove it, then publish it in an engineering journal."
To this I would add: "And if you don't understand something and can't prove it and don't care anyway because you're just trying to make a fast buck, then publish it in a medical journal."
Mike I keep thinking it's a form of brain damage.
I just subscribed because not only do you have a mountain of information and a handy resource but you deserve the support for your impressive efforts and integrity. Best and much support from Australia.