Let us not, in the pride of our superior knowledge, turn with contempt from the follies of our predecessors. The study of the errors into which great minds have fallen in the pursuit of truth can never be uninstructive.
– 19th-century Scottish author Charles MacKay
i stumbled across this whole mess about a year ago, and it surprised me. i had never heard anyone express doubt about the existence of viruses before and i found myself extremely interested. then i started to see more back-and-forth so i wanted to know what this was all about.
i’m writing here because i really want to understand what both sides of this issue are saying, restate that in clear terms everyone else can understand, and maybe learn something.
while there are many voices saying many different things, i’ll try to introduce the two sides and summarize the basics of the argument, as a layperson.
TEAM VIRUS - this appears to include all virologists (scientists who study viruses), almost all other scientists and doctors, and most of the public generally.
team virus absolutely believes viruses are real, they do exist, they do cause disease and sometimes death, and they do spread from person to person through the air or through direct contact. team virus has lots of science stuff, including papers in peer-reviewed journals, pictures, and genetic sequences.
the other side of this debate is more difficult to clearly define, but i like to call them…
THE BOBS
the bobs are pretty much done with the whole “trust the experts” or “trust the science” bit. they sometimes make positive statements, like, “viruses do not exist,” or “viruses have not been proven to exist,” or “virology isn’t science,” etc.
but mostly they are asking some pretty fundamental questions, like:
what exactly is a virus? how exactly do we know it exists?
but most importantly: how exactly does what virologists do in the lab prove a virus exists? or what i like to call, “how the sausage gets made.”
or, stated succinctly: A QUESTIONING OF THE METHODOLOGY OF VIROLOGY as opposed to a questioning of the hypothesis of virology.
the bobs believe they understand what exactly a virologist does in the lab but they don’t think this is adequate proof of the existence of any virus. they claim it’s not scientific.
team virus is quite incensed by this accusation. of course they have proof, scientific proof. lots of people in proximity to each other get sick with various symptoms and some die, they have loads of scientific papers published in very prestigious journals going back 100+ years, they have lots pictures of viruses, and they even have the genetic codes of viruses.
i think that hits all the highlights, so please let me know if you think i’ve captured this correctly so far.
Hiya Dawnie
I can't reply on JonR's post as don't pay. Say what we like about SteveK but at least we can reply for free.
Yes Pretty accurate so far!
from one of the bobs
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
Jo
I guess I'm like you. I don't have enough info to conclude that viruses cause disease. I think it's fair to define viruses as genome fragments. In that case viruses definitely exist, since genomes are obviously capable of being broken into fragments. The important question for me is, are there any fragments that can replicate in certain environments. I think there's a good chance that they can, but I won't be convinced till I see much better proof. Maybe some of the experts have seen such proof, but I still need to see it myself. So that's what I'm doing around here. I want to know what specific base protein sequences would cause a virus to form a protein coat or a lipid coat, what sequences would cause the virus to attach to cells, to enter cells and to acquire proteins there for virus replication. It seems a little far-fetched that a fragment of genetic code could do all that, but if it can, I want to find the proof.