Why assume the existence of viruses?

Actually, I don't. Consider this joke:

(I tried writing the following as a Reply to a Comment below "What’s Wrong with “The Greater Good”, but there seemed to be a glitch or limitation in how long a Comment can be. Perhaps someone could fill me in on this. I’m not finding technical support on Substack very accessible).

His Comment

“Very well-written and thoughtful post, excellent.

I must point out, because I am that irritating pointer-outer, that the actual existence of viruses is actually looking like a scam in and of itself, for about 150 years, now, for the sake of pocket-linings. The study of virology is a shameful scam of unscientific nonsense, it seems clear to me. So the idea of a vaccine is actually now, in my view, quite an insult to Nature and to whatever Higher Power one may consider worthy of serving, if any, and almost certainly an abomination to the health of the individual and the body's natural means of protecting itself. As long as we continue to believe in the myth of the virus, we are missing the mark and playing along in a game that is meant to destabilize and weaken us for no other reason than to enrich most vile individuals and the generality of the behemoth of Big Pharma as a whole, sacrificing our health, and the health of children, for blood money.

I think it's time to break free of this entire train-wreck of medical fraud for good and for the good.

Cheers, though, I really did enjoy your post.”

My Reply

Thanks for your well-expressed input: well done! Even "irritating pointer-outers" are most welcome - in fact especially welcome!

Yes, I'm aware of this, and perhaps I should have put this reply as yet another footnote in a piece that's far too long for most people anyway! I've seen most of Dr Sam Bailey's posts and read her book, and a few other people, and I'm aware that I don't know whether "viruses" exist only as exosomes (and there seems to be no question that THEY exist); nor whether they are in fact the cause of all the diseases attributed to them. I did think about how to take this into account when writing it.

The reason I wrote this from the point of view of someone who believes in viruses was simply rhetorical. It is very rarely possible to change someone's mind about something. The topic I wrote about was one where - if confronted with the notion that there is a flaw in "the greatest good for the greatest number" - most people's reaction would be that they DON'T KNOW what that is, rather than THERE ISN'T a flaw. So I'm not changing their minds, simply adding information. That has a much greater chance of success.

As it is, there is plenty in there - probably too much - that most people would disagree with. I was trying to mitigate that as much as possible.

There's an old and not very funny - but valuable - joke that goes like this.

A man has to take a journey (back in days before tarmac roads). He doesn't know the route well; and on the third day, near the top of a mountainous region he is getting concerned about which path to take. To his relief he notices an old man by the side of the path, brewing some tea over a fire.

"Good day sir. Could you tell me the way to Bally-fitz-Patrick [or wherever you choose for his destination] please?”

The old man screws up his eyes and slowly considers the question.

"Bally-fitz-Patrick eh? Hm. Well … I wouldn't start from here"!

What makes this a joke is that the one thing that is certain is that the traveller HAS to start from where he is, so such advice is worthless.

Similarly when trying to put ideas across to people, you HAVE to start from where they are, as any maths teacher e.g. will tell you. It’s why, for example you first have to give people a model of chemical bonding using electrons as particles, BEFORE progressing to waves and orbitals. It is a simplification that you could regard as a lie; but it’s a necessary step in the right direction.

I've also read Duesberg's book, which is really excellent. When virologists splutter about how you can't apply Koch's postulates to viruses, I think they are missing the point. There is absolutely nothing special about Koch's postulates: they are simply the application of LOGIC to the question at hand - "does this micro-organism cause that disease"? Most people are not sufficiently familiar with logic to recognise that. Even scientists think much less rationally than they think they do. They are unaware of the logical flaws in their papers. Scientists don’t get much training in thinking scientifically: mainly it’s learning increasingly esoteric facts. (Famously, “they know more and more about less and less; until eventually they know everything there is to know about absolutely nothing”)!

I think it was Upton Sinclair who said something like

"It's hard to convince a man of something if his income depends on his not understanding it".

The last couple of years have given plenty of examples illustrating that.