Paradigm shift - existence of viruses; vaccinations & infectious disease history

[Bronson]

Sometimes nothing is as it seems. Since I am a great advocate of radical open mindedness, I have decided to post two videos here. Do not judge before you have seen them. I am not posting this to argue or to convince anyone. I just want to know your thoughts on this and show you a different perspective on this topic. There is nothing "woo woo" or irrational about the statements in the videos. No conspiracy theories, just scientific misconceptions. 

The first one questions the existence of viruses (I know it sounds crazy) and the second video shows the history of contagious diseases with statistics on case numbers and the time of introduction of the respective vaccinations - it made me question many things going on in these days. 

I also know that these topics have been discussed here many times in other contexts, but not as you will see in this videos. 

Please don`t get emotional (I did this mistake myself before and I´m tired of it) also try not to be biased.

Have a great day

 

"The Truth About Viruses"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OGuWWI5aHE&t=400s&ab_channel=Dr.SamBailey

 

"The Germ Paradigm Trap"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQivkd4uDOk&t=81s&ab_channel=RomanBystrianyk

 

[Carl-Richard]

How does terrain theory explain anti-biotics?

[Consilience]

Confused what the specific claim is. You can view electron microscope images of virus particles? 

[Bojan V]

Viruses do exist. We can see them with an electronic microscope.

We can see atoms and subatomic particles, but viruses are much bigger.

[Carl-Richard]

When your claim is essentially "the whole of science is wrong on this one", you have a massive burden of proof. A couple of YouTube videos ain't going to cut it. Also, if the whole of science, which is an international and multi-corporate enterprise with many independent moving parts, instead is coordinating to hide this supposedly obvious truth from all of us — then firstly, why would they do that? — and secondly, what kind of organ are they all answering to? Because to me, the necessary logical conclusion to all of this is some kind of secret world government conspiracy, which is just completely untenable.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Bronson]

@Carl-Richard I don't have any claims because I don't feel competent enough for this, but I watched a whole 1-2 hrs debate between Dr. Stefan Lanka (who criticize virology) and a mainstream virologist. All I can say is that the virologist made no counter arguments and at the end of the debate he started to insult Dr. Lanka personally. Lanka even told the moderator of that show beforehand that people tend to get emotional when their worldview gets shattered and he was right. It could post it but it's in German.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Bronson

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Bronson said:

@Carl-Richard I don't have any claims because I don't feel competent enough for this, but I watched a whole 1-2 hrs debate between Dr. Stefan Lanka (who criticize virology) and a mainstream virologist. All I can say is that the virologist made no counter arguments and at the end of the debate he started to insult Dr. Lanka personally. Lanka even told the moderator of that show that people tend to get emotional when their worldview gets shattered and he was right. It could post it but it's in German.

The thing with criticizing whole paradigms like virology (or heliocentricism like Flat Earthers do) is that most professionals or scientists aren't actually trained in defending the historical arguments that made those paradigms into the mainstream paradigm. A skeptic can therefore come out from the conversation looking like they're on top when they actually know extremely little, only because the scientist they're debating knows nothing. The skeptic will not have countered the expertise of the expert, only sidestepped it, but he will be falsely perceived as having outdone the expert by the majority of the audience. If you actually want to challenge the validity of whole scientific paradigms, debate a philosopher of science or historian of science.

[Bronson]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The thing with criticizing whole paradigms like virology (or heliocentricism like Flat Earthers do) is that most professionals or scientists aren't actually trained in defending the historical arguments that made those paradigms into the mainstream paradigm. A skeptic can therefore come out from the conversation looking like they're on top when they actually know extremely little, only because the scientist they're debating knows nothing. The skeptic will not have countered the expertise of the expert, only sidestepped it, but he will be falsely perceived as having outdone the expert by the majority of the audience. If you actually want to challenge the validity of whole scientific paradigms, debate a philosopher of science or historian of science.

Did you watch the first video I posted? (Dr. Lanka brings up the same arguments as in the in the video)
He is not just a mere sceptic coming from nowhere, he is a biologist. I don't think a virologist needs to be trained to argue but he should just say what he knows, it's simple. If the claim is that the control experiments where made poorly ages ago and you get the same result without a "virus liquid", then the experiment should be done again and better or he should point to a newer better experiment. If everyone only trusts the old paradigm and build their theories on a (maybe) false foundation, then the paradigm can never change. And the longer you build upon a false foundation (a whole century) the less likely it becomes that someone will dare to question it. I don't believe in a flat earth but if you are radically open minded then you should at least listen to what a flat earther has to say and make your own conclusions. I did it.

In this article Lanka writes:

"It is important to note that the theories of fight and infection were accepted and highly praised by a majority of the specialists only if and when the countries or regions where they lived were also suffering from war and adversity. In times of peace, other concepts dominated the world of science. It is very important to note that the theory of infection – starting from Germany – has only been globalized through the third Reich, when the Jewish researchers, most of which had opposed and refuted the politically exploited theories of infection, were removed from their positions."

[Consilience]

@Bronson Again, how do these skeptics account for electron microscopy imaging of viral particles? You can quickly do a google search and start finding images of various viruses. 

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Consilience said:

@Bronson Again, how do these skeptics account for electron microscopy imaging of viral particles? You can quickly do a google search and start finding images of various viruses. 

Don't you know? It's the Jews.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Bronson said:

Did you watch the first video I posted? (Dr. Lanka brings up the same arguments as in the in the video)
He is not just a mere sceptic coming from nowhere, he is a biologist. I don't think a virologist needs to be trained to argue but he should just say what he knows, it's simple.

The person he is debating (I assume) is not an expert on the history of science. A discussion about how virology came to be is a discussion about the history of science.