The first rule in science is to seek to disprove your own theory. If you cannot, then pass that theory over to your colleagues, and ask them to disprove it. If they cannot, then you have a viable hypothesis to begin experimenting and/or accumulating data that would help prove that theory.
Now I'm not a scientist, but I like to apply this principle in other areas of life; for example, researching or debating.
I really don't know much about the history of virology. At the end of the day, this is all a faith-based quest to understand where I stand on certain issues. Meaning, I have faith in the people and information that I have come across regarding this subject of viruses.
So far, you have provided plenty of links and videos, and I am not convinced of this theory that there are no viruses. Nor will I allow myself to go on a wild-goose chase, because I know how these things go.
Stefan Lanka's case is really not a good example to put on the table, and if you and I were on a debate team, I would strongly encourage you not to use that as a point of reference.
I'm not sure what Lanka's intentions were, but this is not a good way to approach a challenge of this nature. I believe he was attempting to create a legal precedent in order to move to Phase 2, which would have been to ask for the halting of vaccinations for measles. The fact the Lower Court Judge ruled that Lanka had to pay the $100,000 means that the Judge was satisfied with the documents that were presented to the Court. Lanka's appeal was avoid having to give up the $100,000 and so was not a case concerning virology, but rather a kind of contractual dispute, upon which the Judge ruled on the technicality that the contest stipulated that all information had to be presented in one publication.
Yet, the alternative media runs with stories like, "German Court rules that there are no viruses!" and other disinformation that suits the narrative.
Perhaps Lanka was attempting to make a point that the measles virus has been eradicated from Germany, and that may very well be the case. But trying to work this out in a Court of Law, by way of a bookmaker, is not very clever; although it may seem that way from the outside.
I provide links because this is an indepth issue which I've written at length about and cannot be answered in a short comment. You have answered the article with the mainstream bullshit argument that he won on a technicality.
This explains what really happened - https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/all-about-that-measles-trial/
No he won the appeal because the original judge di exactly what you are doing now, he deferred to the 'experts' without looking at the evidence nor even understanding the fraud that they have been committing. Of course it's a good idea to take in to court because it's sets a precedent. How else do we expose lying scientists and corporations??
Here is my own writing on the issue of viruses which I've also published on Blurt but you may not have seen. https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/05/25/going-viral-a-recipe-for-disaster/
Oh and BTW the original reward for proof of a measles virus has been increased to 100,000 euro and yet not one 'scientist' or 'virologist' has come forward to claim the prize. If the virus existed then why can no-one prove it?
Yes, this is often the case with these kinds of issues. I have been in the same boat countless times, so I understand the conundrum of trying to present a complex topic with a few sentences.
There is always the equal risk that the precedent can go in favor of the opposition if the case is not presented well.
James Randi offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove homeopathy works... no one claimed the prize. The innuendo here is that homeopathy has been proven not to work.
As for the homeopathy challenge that's a tangent I'm not prepared to go down right now suffice to say it's a distraction to our original point and would be impossible to prove 'scientifically'.
I highly recommend this talk which I watched just yesterday, I think it will answer all your questions nicely in a nutshell. Let me know what you think.
https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/Dr-Jordan-Grant-Science-Pseudoscience-and-the-Germ-Theory-of-Disease:a
Nor would I ask you to go down that road, as I believe very much in homeopathy! 😉 You would be preaching to the choir. 😆 My point was that this is not my preferred choice of how to prove something to be true or not.
I will bookmark that link and have a listen when I can. Thanks!!!
Ok gotcha playing devils advocate. BTW I don't debate any more it's fruitless. You can lead a horse to water and all that. I just write my shit and hope some people 'get it'.
Not quite devil's advocate, but I know what you mean. 😊 It's more in line with what I wrote previously, in that I am your colleague who is attempting to disprove your theory on your behalf. I also do not like debating, as it is indeed fruitless. I remember hearing someone add something to that old saying which I really like... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, nor do you have the right to simply because you're thirsty.
But it's not MY theory and Stefan Lanka is doing an admirable job of making the whole of virology look like a scam all by himself. Have you seen his latest stuff? His control experiments? You won't see that in any 'science' journals for peer review.
Well for me, it was your theory 🤣 as you were the first person to present me with the idea that viruses don't exist. And my theory is that they do exists. From there, we seek support from other sources to run with that theory.
I'll be perfectly honest, the theory that viruses don't exist runs strongly counter to my desire to see justice brought to the likes of Fauci, and all those who are involved in this kind of biological manipulation and warfare. I believe viruses are real, some benign, some dangerous, some lethal. I believe viruses can be manipulated via Gain of Function, and all those involved should be held accountable. Viruses don't exist? Everyone is off the hook! Not the scenario that I want to see played out.