Methods of Viral Replication

[Saw]

What does it mean if you "know" something that is false?

You believe viruses are real and I prefer to know if they are or not.
I go with the evidence, and it leans heavily against virology.
Even if viruses exist as they claim, the science cannot be taken seriously.

So, what causes warts?

How about parasites? I have no idea why it would have to be a virus.

[ofonorow]

Nice guess but parasites exist in portions of the body where they can "steal" from our bodies.

Here is the problem. It is perfectly legitamate to question the virus theory, but to poke holes in a theory without suggesting a better one, does not produce or promote knowledge.

If your side wanted to challenge virology in an intelligent and competent manner, that would be persuasive, a good scientist would suggest an alternative hypothesis, e.g. Colds, flu, Ebola, warts, cancers, lyme disease, chicken pox, herpies, measles, whooping cough, etc. are caused by X, where X is ?? and not a virus.

Has this been done? Is there a competing hypothesis as to what is causing these diseases?

And if so, where are the peer reviewed science that proves (and thus you would know) the cause? The essence of real science are repeatable experients. Where are the experiments that support some alternative? Any alternative?

I suspect that just as in the case of the so-called "Natural Vitamin C Complex," where there is no science to support the alternative to ascorbic acid being vitamin C. Nada. Zero. None. I'm betting that there is no science to support a viable alternative to virology.

If I'm wrong, start citing the science.

[Saw]

If your side wanted to challenge virology in an intelligent and competent manner, that would be persuasive, a good scientist would suggest an alternative hypothesis, e.g. Colds, flu, Ebola, warts, cancers, lyme disease, chicken pox, herpies, measles, whooping cough, etc. are caused by X, where X is ?? and not a virus.

Your joking right? They have a hypothesis - they need to prove it. You think someone who points out all the flawed science needs an alternate
hypothesis or else we just ignore all the bad science?

Anyway I'll humor you, is this good enough or do you need more. The possibilities are endless.

[ofonorow]

Nice try. Nice diversion, but you basically admit there is NO science that supports your view.

As far as I can tell, there is no alternative hypothesis other than pointing out so-called "bad science." I don't even think you have poked many holes in current dogma. But if some mechanism to measure a virus is flawed, that doesn't mean that viruses don't exist.

I'm sorry, there is nothing at all that makes me think viruses don't exist. Viruses have DNA. They have a genome. We've known about them since the middle of the last century. And Judith Vary-Baker was one of the first, as a child, to understand the viral nature of cancers, and show how viruses could be transmitted to another species and cause cancers.

Why you deny the obvious is unclear. I can understand why the individuals in the "dark state" behind the disinformation campaign would like to convince the average joe that viruses don't exist. But as someone interested in truth, you have been fooled.

[Saw]

As far as I can tell, there is no alternative hypothesis other than pointing out so-called "bad science." I don't even think you have poked many holes in current dogma. But if some mechanism to measure a virus is flawed, that doesn't mean that viruses don't exist.

Your arguments are nonsensical, I guess that's because you don't have any.
Do you think the science behind sarscov2 is legit? simple question.

[jimmylesante]

I shall settle the argument....
A virus is simply an intracellular parasite.

[Saw]

I shall settle the argument....
A virus is simply an intracellular parasite.

Parasites are living though , viruses are dead inert objects with no ability to do literally anything, including movement.
Yet somehow we're told these particles can enter our bodily systems, randomly navigate to a cell, then not just stick to the outside
cell wall but somehow enter the cell and then come to life hijacking the cells hardware to manufacture replica's of itself.

A virus is simply an intracellular parasite.

Your assertion is probably correct along with many other sources.
A Parasite probably could destroy a cell, thus creating the breakdown particles they call viruses and the symptoms of disease.

[ofonorow]

[jimmylesante]

A Parasite probably could destroy a cell, thus creating the breakdown particles they call viruses and the symptoms of disease.

Exactly.
Perhaps these parasites or perhaps prions do breakdown the cells.
Is it the broken down cells that are the viruses or is it the partial replication of a hijacked mRNA amino acid chain that burst the cell and left floating around?
Epigenetics is a huge factor in expressing or not expressing how genes work.
eDOC knows more about this .....

[ofonorow]

bravo Jimmy. At least this is a kernel of something that could be argued as an alternative to viruses, i.e., parasites are alive, they eat, they reproduce.

There are probably similar arguments for fungal spores.

a rose by any other name...

This possibility doesn't invalidate the viral theory.

And again, there should be at least a little science supporting the idea that all viruses are somehow related to parasites. How coughing or sneezing transmits a parasite-induced infection.

As an aside, I find it interesting that all these biolabs around the world use level 4 or 5 containment for something that doesn't exist.