I'm struck by the online debate, where conflicting narratives clash over the nature of viruses. At the heart of this turmoil lies an essential quest for direct evidence, free from contamination and bias. This quest goes beyond the confines of virtual platforms, diving into the core of scientific investigation. There's also a possible element of an unconventional counter-narrative in the narrative warfare, where some may unwittingly participate, making them even more effective.
However, here are the demands I received after showing the photograph provided by Professor Chabriere, IHU Marseille.
The demanded or asserted points are as follows:
The necessity to provide direct evidence of isolating and purifying a virus from a human sample, without contamination from other materials such as tissue cultures.
The assertion that there's no room for debate, as all virologists and researchers would agree on the lack of direct evidence for the existence of viruses.
The total absence of direct evidence for the existence of viruses is presented as an indisputable fact.
"But I gave you a photograph, it should hold up in court, just saying ;)"
Furthermore, having experience in the film and photography industry, I can scientifically affirm that it is indeed a photo, a kind of tool for time travel, as you can see the past without being able to change it. It can also help make informed decisions for the future, thus altering what you cannot see, also known as the arrow of time based on the second law of thermodynamics.
"It is crucial to maintain a sense of skepticism, as absolute knowledge is unattainable, and multiple realities can coexist simultaneously, such as the duality of light as both wave and particle.
Dogma in science is dangerous, as highlighted by Descartes, who asserted that the only certainty is knowing nothing. There exist two opposing narratives, yet both are equally real.
The importance lies in demonstrating the validity of a theory without dismissing the possibility that other aspects of reality may also hold true.
For instance, while Newton's theory has been refuted by relativity, it remains applicable in many cases. Ultimately, a theory merely represents a simplification of the complex world we inhabit." - Pr Chabriere
Viruses can be visualized through electron microscopy and detected using techniques such as ELISA, self-tests, or molecular biology methods.
Imagine looking at the tiniest inhabitants of our world through a powerful microscope, akin to a cosmic explorer peering into the vastness of space. In this adventure of discovery, my colleagues and I have devised a remarkable tool – a rapid scanning electron microscope – capable of spotting elusive viral invaders like the notorious SARS-CoV-2, the culprit behind the COVID-19 pandemic.
This cutting-edge technique not only swiftly pinpoints the virus but also identifies other respiratory troublemakers lurking within us. By comparing our findings with established tests like PCR and sequencing, we've uncovered a fascinating correlation between the virus's abundance and our ability to detect it.
Moreover, this method proves invaluable in uncovering novel microorganisms, offering us a vital shield against potential outbreaks, much like a vigilant sentinel guarding against cosmic threats in the vast expanse of the universe.
FIGURE 1
Workflow of the strategy used.
FIGURE 2
Morphological criteria for viral detection on scanning electron microscopy (SEM)-acquired micrographs.
FIGURE 3
(A–F) Micrographs of different nasopharyngeal samples positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Arrows show SARS-CoV-2 particles. Scale bars are shown on the micrographs.
FIGURE 4
Micrographs of negative samples for SARS-CoV-2 and positive for other viruses. (A) NL63 Coronavirus; (B) KU1Coronavirus; (C) Adenovirus (size = 73–133 nm); (D–F) Influenzavirus (ellipsoidal shape, size = 110–185 nm). Arrows show viral particles. Scale bars are shown on the micrographs.
FIGURE 5
(A) Percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal samples detected by SEM correlated to RT-PCR according to Ct value (plain line). The dashed curve indicates the polynomial regression curve. (B) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for positive samples detected by RT-PCR to predict the detection of the virus in these samples by SEM.
FIGURE 6
Venn diagrams comparing the detection by SEM and by SEQ of SARS-CoV-2 samples with Ct < 20 (A), other Coronavirus strains (NL63, KU1, E229, and OC43) (B), and other virus families [Orthomyxoviridae (Influenzavirus) and Adenoviridae (Adenovirus)] (C).
In a preliminary study, we found that combining hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin helped reduce the duration of viral load in COVID-19 patients.
It's crucial to determine when a patient is no longer contagious.
We discovered that patients with a specific measure, called the Ct value, above 33-34 using our testing method are likely not contagious and can be safely discharged from the hospital or end strict isolation.
This finding offers hope for managing the spread of the virus more effectively and giving patients peace of mind as they recover.
Thoughts on the Existence of Viruses and Evaluating Controversial Scientific Discussions
The message divides the opposition to COVID policies into polarized camps, preventing unity and effective action against harmful policies. This is problematic because it hinders the ability to come together and address shared concerns.
By condoning the belief that viruses do not exist, the message undermines the credibility of the anti-mandate movement and alienates moderate supporters. This is detrimental because it weakens the movement's ability to sway public opinion and challenge pandemic policies effectively.
It pushes away moderate authority figures who might otherwise support the cause, further eroding the movement's credibility and effectiveness. This is a problem because it reduces the movement's ability to influence policy and change public opinion.
Ignoring the severity of COVID-19 can lead to delayed treatment and worsened outcomes for those who become severely ill. By promoting the idea that COVID-19 is minor or non-existent, the message contributes to harmful outcomes and reinforces the need for pandemic policies.
The extremist promotion of terrain theory poisons the well for valid aspects of terrain theory to be discussed and considered. This limits the potential for constructive dialogue and exploration of alternative perspectives on COVID-19.
Addressing the issue of virus denialism consumes valuable time and resources that could be better spent on productive efforts to challenge pandemic policies. This is problematic because it detracts from important work and strains personal and professional relationships within the movement.
You ever hear about these folks who claim viruses don't exist? It's like saying unicorns run the CDC. I mean, sure, the health establishment has had its slip-ups, but denying the existence of viruses because of it is like saying my inability to parallel park means cars don't exist. Let's be real, just because science sometimes messes up doesn't mean we throw the whole lab out with the test tubes. We gotta navigate through these murky waters of skepticism with a snorkel of reason and a life vest of critical thinking.
Why is this message problematic?
Firstly, it establishes a criterion for engaging with criticism based on good faith but then questions whether the virus debunking camp meets this standard. It presents various theories to explain the behavior of the debunking camp without concrete evidence, potentially undermining the credibility of the debate.
Additionally, the message suggests that individuals within the debunking camp may have ulterior motives, such as financial gain, without sufficient proof. This assumption could lead to unwarranted skepticism and polarization, detracting from constructive dialogue.
Furthermore, the message's assessment of the debunking camp's sincerity based on observations of behavior may be subjective and lack context. Singling out specific individuals like Steve Kirsch as examples without considering the diversity of opinions within the debunking movement risks oversimplifying the debate.
Overall, while advocating for open debate and good faith engagement, the message may inadvertently discourage such practices by prematurely questioning the motives of those with differing viewpoints. Upholding principles of open dialogue and mutual respect is essential for fostering genuine progress and understanding in scientific discourse.
Alright, let me tell you why this message is about as problematic as a flat tire on the highway. First off, it's like we're playing a game of "Let's Divide and Conquer," but nobody's winning any prizes.
We're all supposed to be on the same team, but instead, we're bickering like siblings over who gets the last cookie. Secondly, it's making us look about as credible as a guy trying to sell snow cones in Antarctica.
I mean, come on, denying the existence of viruses? Might as well deny the existence of gravity while we're at it. It's not doing us any favors when we're trying to convince the world that we're onto something.
Thirdly, it's scaring off the folks who could actually help us out. It's like inviting someone to dinner and then telling them they have to eat with their hands. We need all the allies we can get, but instead, we're chasing them away faster than a dog chasing a squirrel.
And don't even get me started on how it's making COVID-19 look like a walk in the park. It's like saying a lion is just a big kitty cat—until it decides to take a bite out of you.
And lastly, it's sucking up more time than a black hole at a time management seminar. We've got bigger fish to fry than arguing with folks who think viruses are a myth. It's like trying to explain the internet to your grandma—ain't nobody got time for that. So let's put the brakes on this nonsense and focus on the real issues at hand, shall we?
Your decision to become a paying subscriber unlocks access to the rest of this article where I delve into thought-provoking topics such as Arguing in Good Faith and Bad Faith, Pseudoscience, Terrain Theory, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, General Fallacies in The Virus Debate, Causes of Severe COVID-19, and How to Argue in Good Faith.
By subscribing, you're not just gaining information but joining a community dedicated to critical thinking and intellectual exploration.
Arguing in Good Faith and Bad Faith
The concept of arguing in good faith is elucidated, encompassing genuine belief in one's viewpoints, openness to alternative perspectives, and respectful engagement with others. This principle is fundamental for nurturing constructive dialogue and fostering mutual understanding.
A deeper exploration is undertaken regarding the obstacles encountered by those with marginalized viewpoints, highlighting the pervasive issue of unfair censorship, particularly when challenging entrenched power structures. This context underscores the significance of safeguarding the rights of dissenting voices.
A thorough analysis is provided concerning the perceived lack of good faith within the virus debunking camp. Instead of making assumptions about individuals' intentions, the assessment relies on observable behaviors and patterns within the movement.
Further examination is conducted into potential motivations driving the behavior of the virus debunking camp, considering factors such as external influences seeking to disrupt activism movements and financial pressures resulting from loss of professional credentials.
The discussion expands on the conflicts of interest inherent in promoting controversial viewpoints, particularly in the context of maintaining credibility and attracting clientele for alternative health businesses.
Specific behaviors exhibited by the virus debunking camp are scrutinized in detail, including a reluctance to engage with opposing viewpoints, resorting to personal attacks, and evading substantive debate on the issues at hand.
Examples of leadership behavior within the virus debunking movement, such as the actions of Steve Kirsch, are examined to illustrate patterns of arguing in bad faith and prioritizing self-interest over genuine inquiry.
Emphasis is placed on the critical importance of conducting debates in good faith for the advancement of scientific knowledge and societal progress. This entails fostering an environment where all perspectives are heard and evaluated based on evidence and reasoned argumentation.
“In my assessment, the issue lies in the disingenuous engagement of the virus debunking camp within the anti-mandate movement.
Despite claiming to welcome criticism, it appears that many proponents are not genuinely open to debate, potentially due to hidden motivations such as financial incentives tied to promoting controversial viewpoints.
This reluctance to engage in sincere discourse is evident through patterns of dismissing opposing perspectives, resorting to personal attacks, and avoiding substantive discussions.
Such behavior not only undermines the integrity of scientific discourse but also hampers the pursuit of truth. As someone deeply involved in these discussions, it's concerning to witness this lack of genuine engagement, as it impedes the progress of meaningful dialogue necessary for advancing our understanding of complex issues.”
Testing the Scientific Method
In contemporary society, the scientific method serves as a cornerstone for understanding the world around us. It begins with the formulation of hypotheses, which are educated guesses about how the world works. These hypotheses are then rigorously tested through carefully designed experiments or observations.
A crucial aspect of the scientific method is attempting to disprove hypotheses. This means subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny and testing, with the aim of either confirming their validity or identifying flaws that render them invalid. Through this process, hypotheses are refined and adjusted based on empirical evidence.
Reproducibility is another essential component of the scientific method. It's not enough for a single researcher to obtain a particular result; other scientists must be able to replicate the findings independently. This ensures the reliability and validity of scientific conclusions.
However, despite the robustness of the scientific method, it has its limitations. There are certain questions and phenomena that may fall outside the realm of empirical inquiry. For example, matters of faith, spirituality, and personal belief often transcend the boundaries of scientific investigation.
In these cases, while the scientific method may not provide definitive answers, it's essential to recognize and respect the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. This acknowledgment does not diminish the value of scientific inquiry but rather underscores the need for humility and open-mindedness when addressing complex and multifaceted issues.
“Alright, picture this: society's like a big ol' potluck dinner, and everyone's bringing their own dish to the table. But here's the catch—some folks are bringing gourmet lasagna, while others are showing up with mystery meat surprise.
Now, we've got laws and courts to sort out the mess, but lately, it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack while blindfolded. Corruption's crept in like a sneaky raccoon raiding the trash cans, and suddenly, nobody's trusting the system. It's like trying to play Monopoly with a bunch of cheaters—ain't nobody winning fair and square anymore.
And don't even get me started on science—it's supposed to be the truth serum of society, but now it's like trying to find a straight answer in a room full of politicians. We've got hypotheses flying around like confetti, but who's got the evidence to back 'em up?
It's like trying to prove the existence of God with a game of hide and seek—ain't nobody coming out of that one a winner. So, while I still believe in the power of science, it's starting to feel like searching for a four-leaf clover in a field of dandelions—possible, but darn near impossible to find.
What is Pseudoscience?
Pseudoscience is a term used to describe ideas or beliefs that either contradict established scientific principles or fail to adhere to the rigorous methodologies of scientific inquiry.
There are two main interpretations of pseudoscience. The classical definition refers to theories or claims that are not supported by empirical evidence or that violate fundamental principles of scientific investigation, such as falsifiability and reproducibility. The political definition, on the other hand, often involves labeling viewpoints that challenge mainstream scientific consensus, regardless of their adherence to scientific principles.
The term "pseudoscience" has become increasingly subjective and politicized, leading to its frequent misuse as a pejorative to discredit opposing viewpoints. For example, beliefs such as those related to vaccine safety are often labeled as pseudoscience, even though they may have some empirical basis or logical argumentation.
This subjective application of the term has led to ongoing debates about where to draw the line between controversial but scientifically valid hypotheses and genuinely non-scientific claims.
One proposed criterion for identifying pseudoscience is the concept of falsifiability, which suggests that a hypothesis or theory must be capable of being proven false through empirical observation or experimentation. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, it may fall under the category of pseudoscience.
Applying this criterion to the debate surrounding vaccine safety raises complex questions about the scientific evidence supporting different viewpoints and the validity of claims made by both proponents and skeptics. It highlights the importance of critically evaluating scientific claims based on empirical evidence and sound reasoning rather than relying solely on labels or preconceived notions.
Alright, listen up, folks, because we're diving headfirst into the murky waters of labels and accusations—kinda like trying to untangle headphones that have been sitting in your pocket for too long.
See, people love slapping negative labels onto their opponents like they're putting bumper stickers on a beat-up car. Take "racism" for example—it used to pack a punch, but now it's like the boy who cried wolf, showing up in every Google search like it's a game of Where's Waldo.
And don't even get me started on "pseudoscience"—it's like trying to navigate a maze where the rules keep changing. One minute it's violating the scientific method, the next it's just a political jab at anyone who dares question the status quo.
It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out like you're auditioning for a shampoo commercial. So, let's cut through the nonsense and stick to the facts, shall we? Otherwise, we'll end up lost in a sea of labels like a ship without a compass.
The conventional perspective is that vaccines are almost 100% safe and the idea that they can cause neurological injuries or death is pseudoscience and has no evidence supporting it.
•The rebuttal to the conventional argument is that there is a large body of evidence that has accumulated showing vaccine harm exists.
•The response to this argument is that this body of evidence is unscientific and only a randomized placebo-controlled study can show if the harm is occurring.
•The rebuttal to the conventional side is that this means we need to do randomized controlled trials to evaluate the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule so we can determine if harm does or does not exist.
•The response to this argument is that since vaccines are “so safe and effective” it is unethical to ever perform a placebo-controlled study since doing so would deny placebo trial participants access to a “life-saving” vaccine.
Because of the final argument, the vaccine schedule has never been tested for safety, and whenever individuals attempt to follow proper research protocols to do so, they typically later face harsh sanctions for doing so (ie. Andrew Wakefield and Paul Thomas).
Alright, buckle up, because we're diving deep into the murky waters of vaccine debates—it's like trying to navigate a minefield in flip-flops. See, on the surface, arguments against vaccine safety sound all scientific and legit, but when you put 'em all together, it's like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. It's like, "Sure, vaccines might be safe individually, but what about when you stack 'em up like a game of vaccine Jenga?" And don't even get me started on VAERS—it's like trying to trust a broken compass to lead you out of the woods. So, here we are, stuck in a philosophical tug-of-war between science and skepticism, like a game of tug-of-war where both sides are wearing blindfolds. It's enough to make you want to throw up your hands and say, "I'm out!" But hey, at least we can all agree on one thing: debating vaccine safety is about as fun as getting a root canal on a rollercoaster.
What is Terrain Theory?
Alright, let's break it down like we're trying to explain algebra to a cat. So, we've got this terrain theory, which is like saying your body's a garden and you gotta tend to it just right to keep the weeds at bay. But then, some folks take it a step further, like saying those weeds can morph into killer vines if you're not careful. It's like trying to fight off a swarm of mosquitoes with a fly swatter—it might work, but you're still gonna get bit. And don't even get me started on those microscopes—trying to see tiny organisms with 'em is like trying to spot a needle in a haystack with a pair of binoculars. So, here we are, stuck in a maze of theories and microscopes, like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with a blindfold on. But hey, at least we're keeping it interesting, right?
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Alright, hold onto your hats because we're about to take a trip down the rabbit hole of misunderstandings and microscope mishaps—it's like trying to untangle Christmas lights while wearing mittens. So, we've got this Dunning-Kruger Effect, which basically says the less you know, the more you think you know—it's like thinking you're a gourmet chef just because you made toast once. But then, we've got folks arguing against viruses existing, and it's like trying to argue that socks are actually tiny hats for your toes. And let's not forget about those pesky PCR tests—like trying to tell the difference between a whisper and a scream in a crowded room. And don't even get me started on exosomes—it's like trying to tell a puffin from a penguin in a snowstorm. So here we are, lost in a sea of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, like trying to solve a crossword puzzle with no clues. But hey, at least we're keeping things interesting, right?
Alright, buckle up folks, because we're diving into the world of virus debunking and genomic gymnastics—like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. So, we've got these arguments against viruses existing, which are about as convincing as a toupee in a hurricane. First off, there's this whole spiel about genomic sequencing being some sort of grand illusion, but it's like trying to argue that Bigfoot is just a guy in a gorilla suit—ain't buying it! Then, there's the classic "viruses can't cause disease" argument, which is about as plausible as saying pizza doesn't make you happy—it's just plain ridiculous. But hey, at least we're getting a good laugh out of it, right?
General Fallacies in The Virus Debate
So, let me get this straight: these folks are out here claiming viruses don't exist and we're all just supposed to nod along like we're at a bad magic show? I mean, sure, I've seen some wild theories in my day, but this one takes the cake—like trying to convince me that pants were never invented and we've all been hallucinating pockets! And then they pull this whole "prove viruses exist" stunt like it's some kind of cosmic scavenger hunt. I've got better things to do than chase down invisible bugs all day, thank you very much! It's like saying, "Prove the Loch Ness Monster isn't real, or else you're obligated to believe in lake monsters." Sorry, but I'll stick to reality, thank you very much.
What causes severe COVID-19?
So, let me get this straight: we've got folks out here saying COVID-19 is just like the flu, but then they turn around and claim it doesn't even exist? It's like trying to argue that pizza doesn't exist because sometimes you order it and it's just okay. And then they're throwing around all these vague explanations like they're trying to dodge a dinner bill—come on, just pick a theory and stick with it! It's like watching someone juggle watermelons while riding a unicycle, except instead of entertainment, it's just confusion. Honestly, I'd rather spend my time arguing about whether or not socks exist. At least that debate has some traction!
How to Argue in Good Faith
Alright, let me break this down: we've got a bunch of folks out here arguing that viruses don't exist, but they're doing it with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop. It's like trying to have a civil debate with a pack of hyenas—it's just chaos. And then they're demanding that we prove them wrong, but they won't even clearly state what they're arguing in the first place! It's like playing a game of charades where nobody knows the rules. Look, I'm all for healthy debate, but this is like trying to wrestle a greased pig—it's exhausting, and nobody's getting anywhere. So until they can shape up and play by the rules, I'm outta here.
Source: The Viral Conundrum
