Actually no. I can read faster than people speak so I prefer to read. Unless I am driving or something at the same time, in which case audio is the best format.
Actually no. I can read faster than people speak so I prefer to read. Unless I am driving or something at the same time, in which case audio is the best format.
Maybe. But I think a written debate is a good format - you need time to consider and respond to each point when it comes to science. It's not politics.
The other problem would be the time involved. All these guys that Steve could get, I guess, are busy with important things and they don't take the "no virus" guys seriously and don't want to waste their time with them. They'll do a 2 hour video debate for the LOLs but they won't spend days writing papers, issuing rebuttals and referencing everything etc. Why should they? They'd be backwards and forwards for months. They think these people are charlatans (I'm not taking one or the other as I don't understand any of it).
Do we care enough then? I'm not sure everything we 'know' about viruses is correct (if they cannot exist outside cells for very long, how do they infect other people? how do they 'shed'? how do we explain people living - for example on an Antarctic base for many weeks suddenly getting colds - where are these infected cells coming from and how are they infecting people?), but pure terrain theory doesn't explain chicken pox either, without distorting the reality of the manifestations of the illness.
If we can't be bothered to think about the issues with each explanation for disease because we think the other side are charlatans, then fair enough. But it doesn't seem like a very good way to conduct science. We should never be dogmatic.
Outstanding comment, Sophocles. We're rapidly becoming a non-reading society in which all information has to be conveyed by instagram, tik-tok, or bitchute video. Information presented through sound can only be processed sequentially, whereas texts can be scanned and skimmed at far greater speed. The repercussions of this trend are going to be profound.
Actually no. I can read faster than people speak so I prefer to read. Unless I am driving or something at the same time, in which case audio is the best format.
I think he's trying to target a wider audience.
Maybe. But I think a written debate is a good format - you need time to consider and respond to each point when it comes to science. It's not politics.
The other problem would be the time involved. All these guys that Steve could get, I guess, are busy with important things and they don't take the "no virus" guys seriously and don't want to waste their time with them. They'll do a 2 hour video debate for the LOLs but they won't spend days writing papers, issuing rebuttals and referencing everything etc. Why should they? They'd be backwards and forwards for months. They think these people are charlatans (I'm not taking one or the other as I don't understand any of it).
Do we care enough then? I'm not sure everything we 'know' about viruses is correct (if they cannot exist outside cells for very long, how do they infect other people? how do they 'shed'? how do we explain people living - for example on an Antarctic base for many weeks suddenly getting colds - where are these infected cells coming from and how are they infecting people?), but pure terrain theory doesn't explain chicken pox either, without distorting the reality of the manifestations of the illness.
If we can't be bothered to think about the issues with each explanation for disease because we think the other side are charlatans, then fair enough. But it doesn't seem like a very good way to conduct science. We should never be dogmatic.
Here's my stance: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/debate-viruses-do-not-exist-or-do/comment/8856793
I link from there to my post on Is Microbiology Sound.
Outstanding comment, Sophocles. We're rapidly becoming a non-reading society in which all information has to be conveyed by instagram, tik-tok, or bitchute video. Information presented through sound can only be processed sequentially, whereas texts can be scanned and skimmed at far greater speed. The repercussions of this trend are going to be profound.