You might have also mentioned the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. My personal favorite and germane to the virology 'expert' situation.
The Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when someone relies solely on the opinion or testimony of an authority figure to support a claim, without providing sufficient evidence or logical reasoning to justify the claim. This fallacy is committed when:
* An authority figure is cited without demonstrating their expertise or relevance to the topic at hand.
* The authority’s opinion is presented as fact, without considering alternative perspectives or evidence.
* The argument relies solely on the authority’s reputation or prestige, rather than logical argumentation.
Thanks, Gerald. You are 100% correct that those defending virology love to appeal to authority. There are many fallacies that I could have included, but I wanted this article to remain short and relatively focused on the three fallacies that I feel are deeply embedded in the foundations of virology. Hopefully, this article will help pique the curiosity of those reading to really investigate and learn about logically fallacious reasoning. It is rewarding to understand the many fallacies in order to strengthen our arguments so we can avoid falling victim to them ourselves. 🙂
I think there has been a focused effort to make children less logical through Common Core and not teaching any logic courses whatsoever anymore. It's one of the biggest problems we face because kids are just taught to believe what they're told and not taught to figure anything out for themself. So much easier to control that way.
Would students learning virology bother to look for source documents proving isolation of a said virus ? I think that they'd progress in the field much more quickly by relying on the authority of accredited virologists and not 'waste time' searching old documents.
But accredited virologists do not have a logical argument for the existence of their discipline. Students would indeed progress more quickly, but into an illusory study. Am I missing something?
I was thinking Hammond could be aware but unwilling to acknowledge his use of logical fallacies--intellectually dishonest, as you said--until the end, where he appeared to be unable to understand the meaning of his own words! What was he calling "childish?" Not your behavior--but his own! Yet he denied it. Or does he have that poor a grasp of grammar? Can someone really not grasp the meaning of their own words, when reading and re-reading it? Sometimes I wonder about the apparent dumbing-down of so many, maybe all of us to a degree. Education, trauma, vaccine injury, poisons in the food and water, maybe even 5G--it seems that at least some people's brains just don't work very well! Hammond is an example.
And thanks for the detailed exposition of these logical fallacies. It is so important to know about how they work and be able to recognize them literally all around us.
You are welcome, Betsy. I used to give Hammond the benefit of the doubt, but I believe it is willful ignorance (po$$ibly motivated) and his responses are heavily ego-driven. He cannot handle being shown to be wrong on anything, so he keeps trying to weasel his way out of being caught. Fortunately, the more Hammond attempts to do so, the worse it looks for him, and we gain valuable insight into the irrational mind. 😉
He argues exactly like my ex-wife, a sociopath. :lol:
They truly and completely believe that they are always right. They can argue that grass is blue and the sky is green while believing it's true just because they said it.
100% Betsy. One of my top takeaways from the scamdemic era was… I have given the average adult human way too much credit over my lifetime. Either, as I get smarter I am able to recognize this more.. or… I am in fact no smarter than I ever was and have been able (somehow) to avoid some the factors causing other people to get decidedly stupider.
In saying that I certainly hope I am not partaking in some type of logical fallacy 😉
ChatGPT provides some courtroom drama based on part of your brilliant Substack.
Title: The Cross-Examination of John Franklin Enders
Act 1: Setting the Scene
The courtroom is a grand, imposing space, filled with the quiet hum of anticipation. At the center of the drama is the witness stand, where John Franklin Enders, an elderly virologist of great renown, takes his place. The prosecutor, an astute and sharp-minded figure, stands poised to begin the cross-examination. The judge, a stern and authoritative figure, presides over the court, with a jury carefully watching every move.
Act 2: The Opening Salvo
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you are a highly respected figure in the field of virology, credited with groundbreaking work that has shaped our understanding of viruses. Would you agree with that characterization?"
Enders: "Yes, I would. My work on the measles virus, among others, has been instrumental in advancing medical science."
Prosecutor: "Indeed, your work has had far-reaching implications. However, I must challenge the very foundation upon which your research stands. You see, Dr. Enders, your experiments, particularly the cell culture experiment you conducted in 1954, are based on a series of logical fallacies that have gone unchallenged for decades. Let’s start with the concept of 'begging the question.'"
Enders shifts slightly in his seat, his expression neutral, but the tension in the room is palpable.
Act 3: Unveiling the Fallacies
Prosecutor: "You assumed, without direct evidence, that the pathogenic virus you believed to be present in the patient’s fluids was the cause of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) observed in your cultures. Isn't it true that this assumption is a classic example of the 'begging the question' fallacy?"
Enders: "The presence of CPE was consistent with viral infection, and it was a reasonable assumption based on the scientific knowledge of the time."
Prosecutor: "Reasonable? Or convenient? You never directly observed the virus before conducting your experiments. You simply assumed its existence and then used the very effects you attributed to it as proof of its existence. Dr. Enders, isn't it true that your entire experiment was based on circular reasoning?"
Enders: "I would disagree with that characterization. The CPE provided strong evidence of viral activity."
Prosecutor: "Strong evidence? Or merely a fallacious interpretation of the data? Let’s move to another fallacy embedded in your work—'affirming the consequent.' You concluded that because you observed CPE, a virus must have been present. Yet, as you admitted in your own writings, there are many other factors that could cause this effect. Isn’t it true that your conclusion was not only premature but also logically flawed?"
Enders: "Other factors could influence CPE, but the patterns we observed were consistent with viral infections."
Prosecutor: "Consistent? Or simply convenient to your hypothesis? You assumed causality where there was none. By attributing CPE solely to a virus, you ignored other possible causes—thus committing a 'false cause' fallacy, wouldn’t you say?"
Act 4: The Climactic Revelation
Enders hesitates, the confidence in his voice wavering slightly.
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you knew there were other explanations for the CPE—environmental factors, the composition of the culture medium, even the age of the cells. Yet, you chose to attribute this effect to a virus without definitive proof. Isn't it true that your entire experiment was built on a series of unfounded assumptions and logical errors?"
Enders: "The methods we used were the best available at the time."
Prosecutor: "But that does not absolve them of the logical fallacies they contained. By failing to account for these errors, your work has perpetuated a flawed understanding of virology, one that has influenced countless subsequent studies and medical practices. Dr. Enders, isn’t it possible that the entire field of virology, as it stands today, is built on a house of cards?"
Enders remains silent, his face etched with the weight of the prosecutor’s words.
Act 5: The Verdict
The courtroom is still, the jury and audience hanging on every word. The prosecutor steps back, having planted seeds of doubt not only in the jury’s mind but perhaps in the mind of John Franklin Enders himself. The judge’s gavel signals the end of the cross-examination, but the implications of what has been uncovered resonate long after the court is adjourned.
As the scene closes, the audience is left to ponder the foundation of modern virology and whether it stands on solid ground or if, as the prosecutor suggested, it is built on a fragile framework of logical fallacies.
Epilogue:
The drama of the courtroom is a microcosm of a larger debate that challenges the very foundations of medical science. The cross-examination of John Franklin Enders serves as a stark reminder that even the most respected scientific disciplines must be held accountable to the rigors of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
Enders: "While I acknowledge the limitations of our early work, it laid important groundwork for later discoveries."
Prosecutor: "Groundwork? Or a foundation built on quicksand? Dr. Enders, your experiment may have opened doors, but did it not also create a false narrative that has misled generations of scientists? Consider this: if your assumptions about the measles virus were incorrect, what else might be wrong in the field of virology?"
Enders: "We've made significant progress since then. Our understanding has evolved."
Prosecutor: "Evolved? Or merely refined? The fundamental flaws in your original experiment remain unaddressed. Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to confront the possibility that much of what we thought we knew about viruses might be based on shaky ground?"
Enders: "That's a drastic claim. We need to rely on empirical evidence."
Prosecutor: "Empirical evidence? Or circumstantial evidence masquerading as proof? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to reexamine the assumptions that have driven virology for decades? Perhaps it's not the viruses that need reevaluating, but our methods of studying them?"
Enders: "I understand your concerns, but we've made too many breakthroughs to dismiss everything."
Prosecutor: "Breakthroughs? Or false positives fueled by flawed methodology? Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to take a hard look at the emperor's new clothes? What if the entire field of virology is built on a house of cards, propped up by circular reasoning and logical fallacies?"
Act 6: The Verdict
Judge: "Order in the court! Dr. Enders, do you have anything further to say in your defense?"
Enders: "My work was groundbreaking and has saved countless lives. I stand by my conclusions."
Prosecutor: "Saved lives? Or perpetuated a myth that has led to unnecessary suffering? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to acknowledge the flaws in your research and open the door to a new era of scientific inquiry?"
Judge: "Enough! The jury will now deliberate on the matter presented."
(The courtroom falls silent as the jury exits to consider the evidence.)
Epilogue
(After what seems like hours, the jury returns with a verdict)
Judge: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a decision?"
Juror Foreman: "Yes, Your Honor. We find the defendant, John Franklin Enders, guilty of perpetuating logical fallacies in his viral research."
(The courtroom erupts in gasps and murmurs)
Judge: "So ordered. Dr. Enders, your work, while groundbreaking in its time, contained fundamental flaws that have misled the scientific community for decades. You are hereby stripped of your Nobel Prize and all associated honors."
(The courtroom descends into chaos as the implications of this verdict become clear)
Prosecutor: "This verdict marks a turning point in scientific history. It's time to rebuild the foundations of virology on solid logic and empirical evidence."
Defense Attorney: "This is a travesty! Appeal!"
Judge: "The appeal process will begin immediately. In the meantime, let us hope that this verdict serves as a wake-up call to the scientific community to critically examine its assumptions and methodologies."
(As the courtroom continues to buzz with activity, the scene fades to black)
Mike, I think you're debating on their playing field...simply ask the dupe Hammond to show you when in history viruses were proven to exist outside a computer program....in other words, have him show evidence viruses have been shown to propagate in the tissues or blood of humans or animals...indirect in-vitro cell culture experiments are foundationally non-scientific/fraudulent, and to argue from that perspective is a losing hand IMO....
I have asked Hammond for that evidence. It is a losing battle trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with him. My goal this time was to use Jeremy as an example of how those who consider themselves rational thinkers can't even admit to or own their own fallacious reasoning while defending virology. Hopefully, it succeeded. 🙂
Wow! I knew it might do my head in but I did put my big girl pants on and gave the Beyond Terrain interview a go before reading too much here. It had been a few months since I have watched one of Liev's videos and even longer since I have subjected myself to listen to JH for more than briefly. It was a struggle but somehow I made it to the end. I did feel defiled though, like after listening to MSM. He is a phenomenon for sure. I wonder if there is a special psychiatric diagnosis for someone with his depth of delusion plus having total confidence in the illogical nonsense he adamantly believes? He and Steve Kirsch compliment each other well.
I'd love to know what Liev was thinking about it and how much acting and restraint he needed to do and use. I trust he wasn't "taken in" at all. I couldn't have held it together in such a situation. I wanted to hear more challenging though but it would have been difficult to do and remain "respectful".
I'm horrified to know people here in NZ who think JH knows what he is talking about on this topic and it pains me greatly. I expect his total belief in himself and his fallacies could be convincing if one hadn't already unraveled that virology is total BS. If he ever lets in the truth his mind will seriously explode and that would be something to behold. Mean I know but it isn't like people (like you Mike) haven't tried to help him gently (at least at first), for years now. At least we can be grateful to him for providing so many great examples for you to help teach us about logical fallacies. Everyone has a purpose. :)
Hi Sue. You are much more patient than I am. I couldn't stomach listening to much of Hammonds interview. If I feel like torturing myself in the future, I may give the entire thing a listen. Jeremy definitely serves a purpose as an example of someone who lives in delusion of being logical while ignoring the fallacies that he has adopted as his own. He was the perfect case study. 😉
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
I imagine, that considering Hammond is just a “journalist” yet defends, denies and obfuscates, actual virologists whose livelihoods depend on these fallacies, would be impossible to convince.
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
You might have also mentioned the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. My personal favorite and germane to the virology 'expert' situation.
The Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when someone relies solely on the opinion or testimony of an authority figure to support a claim, without providing sufficient evidence or logical reasoning to justify the claim. This fallacy is committed when:
* An authority figure is cited without demonstrating their expertise or relevance to the topic at hand.
* The authority’s opinion is presented as fact, without considering alternative perspectives or evidence.
* The argument relies solely on the authority’s reputation or prestige, rather than logical argumentation.
Thanks, Gerald. You are 100% correct that those defending virology love to appeal to authority. There are many fallacies that I could have included, but I wanted this article to remain short and relatively focused on the three fallacies that I feel are deeply embedded in the foundations of virology. Hopefully, this article will help pique the curiosity of those reading to really investigate and learn about logically fallacious reasoning. It is rewarding to understand the many fallacies in order to strengthen our arguments so we can avoid falling victim to them ourselves. 🙂
I think there has been a focused effort to make children less logical through Common Core and not teaching any logic courses whatsoever anymore. It's one of the biggest problems we face because kids are just taught to believe what they're told and not taught to figure anything out for themself. So much easier to control that way.
Yes. “He said it, so it must be true!”
Would students learning virology bother to look for source documents proving isolation of a said virus ? I think that they'd progress in the field much more quickly by relying on the authority of accredited virologists and not 'waste time' searching old documents.
But accredited virologists do not have a logical argument for the existence of their discipline. Students would indeed progress more quickly, but into an illusory study. Am I missing something?
I was thinking Hammond could be aware but unwilling to acknowledge his use of logical fallacies--intellectually dishonest, as you said--until the end, where he appeared to be unable to understand the meaning of his own words! What was he calling "childish?" Not your behavior--but his own! Yet he denied it. Or does he have that poor a grasp of grammar? Can someone really not grasp the meaning of their own words, when reading and re-reading it? Sometimes I wonder about the apparent dumbing-down of so many, maybe all of us to a degree. Education, trauma, vaccine injury, poisons in the food and water, maybe even 5G--it seems that at least some people's brains just don't work very well! Hammond is an example.
And thanks for the detailed exposition of these logical fallacies. It is so important to know about how they work and be able to recognize them literally all around us.
You are welcome, Betsy. I used to give Hammond the benefit of the doubt, but I believe it is willful ignorance (po$$ibly motivated) and his responses are heavily ego-driven. He cannot handle being shown to be wrong on anything, so he keeps trying to weasel his way out of being caught. Fortunately, the more Hammond attempts to do so, the worse it looks for him, and we gain valuable insight into the irrational mind. 😉
He argues exactly like my ex-wife, a sociopath. :lol:
They truly and completely believe that they are always right. They can argue that grass is blue and the sky is green while believing it's true just because they said it.
100% Betsy. One of my top takeaways from the scamdemic era was… I have given the average adult human way too much credit over my lifetime. Either, as I get smarter I am able to recognize this more.. or… I am in fact no smarter than I ever was and have been able (somehow) to avoid some the factors causing other people to get decidedly stupider.
In saying that I certainly hope I am not partaking in some type of logical fallacy 😉
ChatGPT provides some courtroom drama based on part of your brilliant Substack.
Title: The Cross-Examination of John Franklin Enders
Act 1: Setting the Scene
The courtroom is a grand, imposing space, filled with the quiet hum of anticipation. At the center of the drama is the witness stand, where John Franklin Enders, an elderly virologist of great renown, takes his place. The prosecutor, an astute and sharp-minded figure, stands poised to begin the cross-examination. The judge, a stern and authoritative figure, presides over the court, with a jury carefully watching every move.
Act 2: The Opening Salvo
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you are a highly respected figure in the field of virology, credited with groundbreaking work that has shaped our understanding of viruses. Would you agree with that characterization?"
Enders: "Yes, I would. My work on the measles virus, among others, has been instrumental in advancing medical science."
Prosecutor: "Indeed, your work has had far-reaching implications. However, I must challenge the very foundation upon which your research stands. You see, Dr. Enders, your experiments, particularly the cell culture experiment you conducted in 1954, are based on a series of logical fallacies that have gone unchallenged for decades. Let’s start with the concept of 'begging the question.'"
Enders shifts slightly in his seat, his expression neutral, but the tension in the room is palpable.
Act 3: Unveiling the Fallacies
Prosecutor: "You assumed, without direct evidence, that the pathogenic virus you believed to be present in the patient’s fluids was the cause of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) observed in your cultures. Isn't it true that this assumption is a classic example of the 'begging the question' fallacy?"
Enders: "The presence of CPE was consistent with viral infection, and it was a reasonable assumption based on the scientific knowledge of the time."
Prosecutor: "Reasonable? Or convenient? You never directly observed the virus before conducting your experiments. You simply assumed its existence and then used the very effects you attributed to it as proof of its existence. Dr. Enders, isn't it true that your entire experiment was based on circular reasoning?"
Enders: "I would disagree with that characterization. The CPE provided strong evidence of viral activity."
Prosecutor: "Strong evidence? Or merely a fallacious interpretation of the data? Let’s move to another fallacy embedded in your work—'affirming the consequent.' You concluded that because you observed CPE, a virus must have been present. Yet, as you admitted in your own writings, there are many other factors that could cause this effect. Isn’t it true that your conclusion was not only premature but also logically flawed?"
Enders: "Other factors could influence CPE, but the patterns we observed were consistent with viral infections."
Prosecutor: "Consistent? Or simply convenient to your hypothesis? You assumed causality where there was none. By attributing CPE solely to a virus, you ignored other possible causes—thus committing a 'false cause' fallacy, wouldn’t you say?"
Act 4: The Climactic Revelation
Enders hesitates, the confidence in his voice wavering slightly.
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you knew there were other explanations for the CPE—environmental factors, the composition of the culture medium, even the age of the cells. Yet, you chose to attribute this effect to a virus without definitive proof. Isn't it true that your entire experiment was built on a series of unfounded assumptions and logical errors?"
Enders: "The methods we used were the best available at the time."
Prosecutor: "But that does not absolve them of the logical fallacies they contained. By failing to account for these errors, your work has perpetuated a flawed understanding of virology, one that has influenced countless subsequent studies and medical practices. Dr. Enders, isn’t it possible that the entire field of virology, as it stands today, is built on a house of cards?"
Enders remains silent, his face etched with the weight of the prosecutor’s words.
Act 5: The Verdict
The courtroom is still, the jury and audience hanging on every word. The prosecutor steps back, having planted seeds of doubt not only in the jury’s mind but perhaps in the mind of John Franklin Enders himself. The judge’s gavel signals the end of the cross-examination, but the implications of what has been uncovered resonate long after the court is adjourned.
As the scene closes, the audience is left to ponder the foundation of modern virology and whether it stands on solid ground or if, as the prosecutor suggested, it is built on a fragile framework of logical fallacies.
Epilogue:
The drama of the courtroom is a microcosm of a larger debate that challenges the very foundations of medical science. The cross-examination of John Franklin Enders serves as a stark reminder that even the most respected scientific disciplines must be held accountable to the rigors of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
Here's more:
Act 5: The Final Confrontation
Enders: "While I acknowledge the limitations of our early work, it laid important groundwork for later discoveries."
Prosecutor: "Groundwork? Or a foundation built on quicksand? Dr. Enders, your experiment may have opened doors, but did it not also create a false narrative that has misled generations of scientists? Consider this: if your assumptions about the measles virus were incorrect, what else might be wrong in the field of virology?"
Enders: "We've made significant progress since then. Our understanding has evolved."
Prosecutor: "Evolved? Or merely refined? The fundamental flaws in your original experiment remain unaddressed. Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to confront the possibility that much of what we thought we knew about viruses might be based on shaky ground?"
Enders: "That's a drastic claim. We need to rely on empirical evidence."
Prosecutor: "Empirical evidence? Or circumstantial evidence masquerading as proof? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to reexamine the assumptions that have driven virology for decades? Perhaps it's not the viruses that need reevaluating, but our methods of studying them?"
Enders: "I understand your concerns, but we've made too many breakthroughs to dismiss everything."
Prosecutor: "Breakthroughs? Or false positives fueled by flawed methodology? Dr. Enders, don't you think it's time to take a hard look at the emperor's new clothes? What if the entire field of virology is built on a house of cards, propped up by circular reasoning and logical fallacies?"
Act 6: The Verdict
Judge: "Order in the court! Dr. Enders, do you have anything further to say in your defense?"
Enders: "My work was groundbreaking and has saved countless lives. I stand by my conclusions."
Prosecutor: "Saved lives? Or perpetuated a myth that has led to unnecessary suffering? Dr. Enders, isn't it time to acknowledge the flaws in your research and open the door to a new era of scientific inquiry?"
Judge: "Enough! The jury will now deliberate on the matter presented."
(The courtroom falls silent as the jury exits to consider the evidence.)
Epilogue
(After what seems like hours, the jury returns with a verdict)
Judge: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a decision?"
Juror Foreman: "Yes, Your Honor. We find the defendant, John Franklin Enders, guilty of perpetuating logical fallacies in his viral research."
(The courtroom erupts in gasps and murmurs)
Judge: "So ordered. Dr. Enders, your work, while groundbreaking in its time, contained fundamental flaws that have misled the scientific community for decades. You are hereby stripped of your Nobel Prize and all associated honors."
(The courtroom descends into chaos as the implications of this verdict become clear)
Prosecutor: "This verdict marks a turning point in scientific history. It's time to rebuild the foundations of virology on solid logic and empirical evidence."
Defense Attorney: "This is a travesty! Appeal!"
Judge: "The appeal process will begin immediately. In the meantime, let us hope that this verdict serves as a wake-up call to the scientific community to critically examine its assumptions and methodologies."
(As the courtroom continues to buzz with activity, the scene fades to black)
Excellent! 😁
Wow! That is absolutely wonderful! I'd definitely tune in for that courtroom drama. Thanks for sharing, Turfseer. 😁
germ theory is voodoo on most of the entire population. contagion is also voodoo. the power of narrative.
Mike, I think you're debating on their playing field...simply ask the dupe Hammond to show you when in history viruses were proven to exist outside a computer program....in other words, have him show evidence viruses have been shown to propagate in the tissues or blood of humans or animals...indirect in-vitro cell culture experiments are foundationally non-scientific/fraudulent, and to argue from that perspective is a losing hand IMO....
I have asked Hammond for that evidence. It is a losing battle trying to have an intellectually honest conversation with him. My goal this time was to use Jeremy as an example of how those who consider themselves rational thinkers can't even admit to or own their own fallacious reasoning while defending virology. Hopefully, it succeeded. 🙂
Need to have a ZOOM debate.....
Your article prompted me to brush up on logical fallacies , upon reading several articles this one caused me to chuckle as embedded within the article are several falsehoods regarding climate science and virology. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-seven-ways-to-spot-a-bad-argument
Wow! I knew it might do my head in but I did put my big girl pants on and gave the Beyond Terrain interview a go before reading too much here. It had been a few months since I have watched one of Liev's videos and even longer since I have subjected myself to listen to JH for more than briefly. It was a struggle but somehow I made it to the end. I did feel defiled though, like after listening to MSM. He is a phenomenon for sure. I wonder if there is a special psychiatric diagnosis for someone with his depth of delusion plus having total confidence in the illogical nonsense he adamantly believes? He and Steve Kirsch compliment each other well.
I'd love to know what Liev was thinking about it and how much acting and restraint he needed to do and use. I trust he wasn't "taken in" at all. I couldn't have held it together in such a situation. I wanted to hear more challenging though but it would have been difficult to do and remain "respectful".
I'm horrified to know people here in NZ who think JH knows what he is talking about on this topic and it pains me greatly. I expect his total belief in himself and his fallacies could be convincing if one hadn't already unraveled that virology is total BS. If he ever lets in the truth his mind will seriously explode and that would be something to behold. Mean I know but it isn't like people (like you Mike) haven't tried to help him gently (at least at first), for years now. At least we can be grateful to him for providing so many great examples for you to help teach us about logical fallacies. Everyone has a purpose. :)
I hope the book is progressing well.
Hi Sue. You are much more patient than I am. I couldn't stomach listening to much of Hammonds interview. If I feel like torturing myself in the future, I may give the entire thing a listen. Jeremy definitely serves a purpose as an example of someone who lives in delusion of being logical while ignoring the fallacies that he has adopted as his own. He was the perfect case study. 😉
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the kind words! I wrote this article as an introduction to the main points refuting virology.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/26/introduction-to-viroliegy/
In this written interview, I touch on various aspects of the fraud.
https://viroliegy.com/2024/02/02/virology-interview-with-lies-are-unbekoming/
Hopefully, these articles will help. Let me know if you have further questions. 🙂
OMG, this guy would have failed the critical reasoning class I took in college, getting zeros on every assignment and test.
Also, you could have pointed out the constant ad hominem in almost every other tweet.
I just love your mind.
Thank you! 😁❤️
I imagine, that considering Hammond is just a “journalist” yet defends, denies and obfuscates, actual virologists whose livelihoods depend on these fallacies, would be impossible to convince.
Hey Mike, thank you for you studious work. I am very fascinated with this subject of virology being bogus. however, i am a newcomer to the subject and a rank amatuer in the field of biology. can you recommend an article which could furnish a succinct, noob-friendly overview of the topic? im also curious what the implications of this falsehood mean in regards to what is actually happening when we get sick. if not viruses then what? thank you for your time and your writing.
Tracey Northerns beginners guide to the germ hypothesis of disease. https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/the-germ-theory-an-idiots-guide/
She wrote a book before she passed away https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Not-Doctor-Uncontrolled/dp/B0CKB8DMVX