And what is my hypothesis, exactly?
I merely refuted the virus theory. I didn't propose an alternate theory.
Although, I could do that, but that's not my point here.
My point is that the virus theory is flawed - it has as much evidence as Santa Claus and Tooth fairy.
I am refuting the virus theory, I didn't put forward a replacement theory. I don't have to propose an alternate theory, if I'm refuting the current one.
But if you want a better explanation for disease than viruses, try the terrain theory or German new medicine.
It’s difficult to refute a chimera. If you claim there are viruses then show us one. I can’t refute your claim scientifically other than to say we’ve never seen one. The onus is on you to present the evidence. Not on us to provide definite proof viruses don’t exist. I can’t prove ghosts don’t exist. But if you claim they do, then you are the one to produce evidence.
And what is my hypothesis, exactly?
I merely refuted the virus theory. I didn't propose an alternate theory.
Although, I could do that, but that's not my point here.
My point is that the virus theory is flawed - it has as much evidence as Santa Claus and Tooth fairy.
If you have an alternate theory, please post the supporting studies.
I am refuting the virus theory, I didn't put forward a replacement theory. I don't have to propose an alternate theory, if I'm refuting the current one.
But if you want a better explanation for disease than viruses, try the terrain theory or German new medicine.
You're welcome.
I am not asking for an alternate theory, I am asking for supporting studies. Thank you.
Supportive studies of what? I didn't make any claim.
I only said the existing studies/evidence of existence of viruses are flawed or fraudulent in some cases.
What exactly do I need a study for?
Science is built upon observational studies that prove or refute a hypothesis. If you have studies proving or refuting a hypothesis, post them.
It’s difficult to refute a chimera. If you claim there are viruses then show us one. I can’t refute your claim scientifically other than to say we’ve never seen one. The onus is on you to present the evidence. Not on us to provide definite proof viruses don’t exist. I can’t prove ghosts don’t exist. But if you claim they do, then you are the one to produce evidence.
Are you a robot?
All I said is the existing evidence for the viruses is weak or fraudulent, even.
There are people who debunked the foundations of the virus narrative already, such as Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Sam Bailey and others.
If you want to see what they have to say against virology, look them up on Odyssey and Bitchute.
I won't repeat what they said already.
Based on the evidence presented, I am not convinced.
That's exactly my stance regarding virology: based in the evidence presented, I am not convinced. Virology has big holes in it's methodology..
And I don't need to convince everyone.
Only those which are not brainwashed to the point of no return and can still use critical thinking skills..