Arguing against the existence of SARS-CoV-2
I’ve done that many times.
Here I want to examine the claim that “the hypothesis of a virus best explains the facts at hand.”
People can’t get it through their heads that “a hypothesis that explains” isn’t science. It’s just a thought, an idea, a possibility, a first step on a long road.
A scientist says, “You know, when I make a map of all the planets in our solar system, and I show their orbits, and I factor in the effects of gravity—when I look at all these facts—I think there is another planet we haven’t found yet. That’s my hypothesis which explains the facts.”
Starting point. That’s all.
NOW the scientist has to do one of two things. Either FIND that planet by direct observation; or if he can’t, devise an experiment which PREDICTS something he can observe, based on his hypothesis that there is another planet in the solar system.
What he predicts has to be specific, a specific event that occurs during a specific time period.
That would be science.
The value of a hypothesis is its contribution to a prediction.
Its value isn’t its explanation of a set of facts.
Many hypotheses can explain the same set of facts.
The hypothesis of a virus, SARS-CoV-2, hasn’t led to any significant SPECIFIC predictions, such as: “a cluster of at least a thousand cases in these 3 towns in Southern Ohio between October and December.”
And there is another problem—what ARE the true facts the virus-hypothesis is “explaining?”