A disappointing section on viruses. I thought you, Dr Eades, as someone who is intelligent and scientifically-minded, would have based your view on the validity of the scientific evidence for the existence of viruses, rather than on your dislike of an alternative theory posed by some folk. "The Science" needs to be examined as it can be …
A disappointing section on viruses. I thought you, Dr Eades, as someone who is intelligent and scientifically-minded, would have based your view on the validity of the scientific evidence for the existence of viruses, rather than on your dislike of an alternative theory posed by some folk. "The Science" needs to be examined as it can be bought, as you surely know when it comes to saturated fat. And it is not necessary to prove a counter-theory in order to disprove a pseudo-scientific myth.
Drs Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman take ‘lay people’ like me step-by-step through the papers which purport to show the isolation of viruses and demonstrate their complete lack of scientific validity – with errors including but not limited to lack of independent variables, lack of control experiments, circular reasoning and fraudulent conclusions. If you could set aside your prejudices (“these folk must be mad”) you could whip through such papers in ten minutes without any hand-holding and I don’t believe you could come out of that without seeing the fraud.
I do base my opinion on the validity of science, which clearly shows that viruses exist. In my view, the alternative theory doesn't hold water. Not based on the published science available, and not based on my 45 years of medical experience. I have watched videos by Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman. I didn't just reject their ideas out of hand. I listened to what they had to say. And I disagreed. That's not to say that someday there will be a major breakthrough and viruses will be shown to be a hoax. But I'm not willing to bet on it.
A disappointing section on viruses. I thought you, Dr Eades, as someone who is intelligent and scientifically-minded, would have based your view on the validity of the scientific evidence for the existence of viruses, rather than on your dislike of an alternative theory posed by some folk. "The Science" needs to be examined as it can be bought, as you surely know when it comes to saturated fat. And it is not necessary to prove a counter-theory in order to disprove a pseudo-scientific myth.
Drs Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman take ‘lay people’ like me step-by-step through the papers which purport to show the isolation of viruses and demonstrate their complete lack of scientific validity – with errors including but not limited to lack of independent variables, lack of control experiments, circular reasoning and fraudulent conclusions. If you could set aside your prejudices (“these folk must be mad”) you could whip through such papers in ten minutes without any hand-holding and I don’t believe you could come out of that without seeing the fraud.
I do base my opinion on the validity of science, which clearly shows that viruses exist. In my view, the alternative theory doesn't hold water. Not based on the published science available, and not based on my 45 years of medical experience. I have watched videos by Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman. I didn't just reject their ideas out of hand. I listened to what they had to say. And I disagreed. That's not to say that someday there will be a major breakthrough and viruses will be shown to be a hoax. But I'm not willing to bet on it.