Reflections on viruses that don’t exist; non-logic promoted by virus addicts
First of all, see my article here, where Dr. Andrew Kaufman goes over, step by step, a typical lab method that claims to be isolating viruses and thus proving they exist. Dr. Kaufman rips this method to shreds. There is no isolating and discovering of viruses going on in those labs. There is only a charade.
But failure to prove viruses exist doesn’t stop virus addicts.
They often deploy strange arguments to bolster their absurd claims.
These arguments can be gathered under the general heading of: THIS MEANS THAT.
For instance, if two people who live together come down with cough, sniffles, and fatigue, it means they got sick because a virus was transmitted between them.
It must mean that.
Alas, it doesn’t.
It could mean the city they live in is blanketed by air pollution. It could mean they ate food that contained a toxic chemical. It could mean they ingested the same toxic recreational drug…
Now, if they go to the doctor and he tells them they have the flu, we have another THIS MEANS THAT: The flu is defined as a viral disease. So if both people have the flu, it means they have a flu virus.
No. This is circular reasoning. It relies on the ASSUMPTION that flu means a virus is present.
But this assumption is unproven. Flu viruses were never isolated.
Essentially, when you boil down the argument, it goes this way: If you have a virus, you have a virus.
A perfect example of circular reasoning: you assume what you’re trying to prove.
“We already know the flu is caused by a virus, so if you have the flu, you have a virus.”
Except we don’t know “the flu” is caused by a virus—we’re just ASSUMING that’s true. With zero proof.
Because, again, the “flu virus” was never isolated.
Here’s another argument. This one is quite strange: