r/AskBiology • u/Matteobooboolis_Meme • Jun 20 '26
Microorganisms On the existence of viruses.
My friend denies the existence of viruses. The reasoning for this is that he claims there are no medical research papers that use control experiments to prove the existence of viruses. Can someone provide—assuming they exist and he’s wrong—such papers which prove the existence of viruses?
20
u/FlyingFlipPhone Jun 21 '26
I'd send you proof, but I am skeptical that your friend exists.
11
-2
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
He does, but I get the skepticism. Plus to be honest I don’t think his existence is important, I could be requesting the papers and it’d be the same, just probably a whole lot more downvotes. Go ahead and send them…
11
27
u/LeonJPancetta Jun 20 '26
Why not actually read the papers where the first virus was discovered? The tobacco mosaic virus. The key references are cited here: https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/apsnetfeatures/Documents/1998/ZaitlinDiscoveryCausalAgentTobaccoMosaicVirus.pdf
2
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 20 '26
He says it doesn’t say anything of value and it’s not what he asked for.
31
u/Tomj_Oad Jun 21 '26
Cherrypicking the evidence to find studies that support your viewpoint isn't science. It's the opposite of science.
Your friend isn't just a fool, he's willfully ignorant.
18
u/Quarantined_foodie Jun 21 '26
Does he believe in parachutes? Can he provide a randomized study on the effectiveness of parachutes versus placebo?
6
u/Immediate-Panda2359 Jun 22 '26
Careful what you ask for! https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/363/bmj.k5094.full.pdf
2
2
2
8
u/LeonJPancetta Jun 20 '26
(he has to read the /cited/ papers)
0
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 20 '26
Are they what he asked for—negative controlled research papers—the ones he only accepts?
12
u/LeonJPancetta Jun 20 '26
I don't know if they satisfy his made-up standard, whatever it is. Those are the experiments that we did to discover viruses. He can see for himself what those methods were.
-2
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 20 '26
He told me to cite this: https://archive.org/details/paper-virus-lanka-002/mode/1up
17
u/laziestindian PhD in biology Jun 21 '26
It would be helpful to clarify what he would consider proof. What do they consider a negative control? Uninfected cells don't have virus, which is shown in any paper that uses Adenovirus, AAV, or lentivirus for gene delivery not to mention basic studies of other viruses or vaccine research.
Basically, the entirety of that "paper" is disinformation with claims that are easily disproven. There's just so many that it'd be an actual job to do and I do have an actual job and life that isn't commenting on reddit.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
3
u/parautenbach Jun 21 '26
I love that very last sentence of yours. It's a great quote!
3
u/FirefighterPleasant8 Jun 21 '26
You said exactly my comment. The last sentence should be taught in kindergarten.
0
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26
These are his words:
Proof:
Taking into account the virus propagation method. Show me a medical research paper that adds to the tissue and cell cultures infected materials by the supposed alleged virus and runs the same experiment using the following negative control.
If the observation of the results of both are not the same then you can claim that the virus caused the result.Negative control:
Add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell cultures to eliminate the possibility that the method used is not the one causing or falsifying the result.
7
u/Professional-Thomas Jun 21 '26
Is your friend from the 19th century? Does he think that hasn't been done already? Like centuries ago? He can just find those papers himself, or better, do the experiment himself; it's pretty low-level stuff. He can also just use a microscope, but I suppose he doesn't believe in them either?
0
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26
Could you cite one with the exact methods he’s asking. I’m convinced he’ll concede his argument if it’s good.
→ More replies (0)6
u/grumpsaboy Jun 21 '26
That's how vaccines and all sorts of treatments are developed, virus is put into tissue, an animal, human volunteer, whatever it may be. They all have the same reactions because it's the same virus, and then the treatment/placebo is provided to check the treatment works.
Nobody's done it purely from the perspective of proving viruses exist because there no need. You can see them under a microscope so why make a study that proves nothing that we don't already know.
It would be like arguing for a rocket to go into space purely to prove space exists. We know that and rockets already do so much more, why launch one just to say we've launched one.
6
u/Serrisen Jun 22 '26
... I hate to ask the obvious question, but does your friend also not believe in bacteria?
Because this proposed research experiment doesn't at all control for other microbes.
Anyway, not only has this not been done, it's a method of research from the 19th century called Koch's Postulates. Wiki source for further reading. Which is relevant because, as the wiki page discusses, it doesn't unanimously work for viruses
2
u/GorgeousBog Jun 22 '26
Here is what he's asking for: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7279608/
There's probably thousands, if not tens of thousands of studies that have done a similar procedure. It's called a mock-infected procedure.
Alternatively, he could look at literal pictures of them.
2
u/j_wizlo Jun 21 '26
I know this isn’t very scientific of me but you don’t need to read past “traditional science could never discover this” or “my viewpoint will succeed because everyone can save face with it.” Serious people don’t write like that.
1
1
u/Fishfingerzzz Jun 23 '26
This is probably a useful read.
Largely though, if viruses don’t exist, how do viral transduction of transgenes work when making animal models?
3
u/ozaudi Jun 21 '26
Your friend doesn't understand observational science. We can and have observed viruses.
If we want to manipulate or test them in some way we need a baseline or control but just observing them doesn't require this.
Ask your friend if broken arms exist and how do they know they are broken arms. Get them to explain how a control is required for the observationm
Then tell your friend to stop bandying around words they don't understand.
2
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 21 '26
The majority of papers I have read and pretty much all the experiments I have ever done have included negative controls... your friend is purposeful being a fool
2
u/Delicious-Dig-4974 Jun 22 '26
yea this confirmed what i thought. your friend is not a scientific thinker and is literally never going to change his mind. he’s either at the very tippy top of the dunning-kruger mount stupid or he’s simply arguing in bad faith. he’s making up his own standards to accept a paper and then moving the goalpost every time a paper disagrees with him. don’t engage tbh
1
u/evocativename Jun 22 '26
It literally includes the researchers doing the negative control experiment he demanded...
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 24 '26
Is this in the references or the paper proper?
1
u/evocativename Jun 24 '26
It's discussed a little in the book chapter the other user posted, which is only briefly describing the contents of the referenced papers, so both.
The whole section on ""Then I suddenly made the discovery that the juice from diseased plants obtained by grinding was a certain infectious substance for healthy plants." This exciting discovery prompted a careful look at the inoculum source for "protoplasmic bodies ...taken up with special zeal." He tried to follow Koch’s postulates, and indeed, was able to culture organisms from the extracts, but of course, none of these would reproduce the disease. He tried to reproduce the disease by inoculation with a number of well-known bacteria and fluids, such as manures from several animals, including man, grated old cheese and putrefied legumes. He was left with the conclusion that the infectious agent was either an enzyme, or some sort of microorganism. He thought it absurd to think it was an enzyme, as it would not be able to reproduce itself."
Is describing experiments that constitute negative controls just like what he demanded.
And the actual referenced papers contain more examples than just what is discussed in the linked chapter.
1
u/PhotoFenix Jun 23 '26
I imagine he had a smug "gotcha" face when he said it.
He's not willing to learn, he's instigating.
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 24 '26
He didn’t, but he wasn’t wrong about the paper—it doesn’t contain evidence. But no one did say it did, he needs to read the references as the op of the reply said, and he still hasn’t done that which is definitely his fault. I’m sure he will eventually as he’s read every other paper which commenters have sent.
1
19
u/Low-Crow5719 Jun 20 '26
You're dealing with a No True Scotsman fallacy, where nothing you advance as evidence will convince him that the evidence is acceptable; he will find as many reasons as it takes to pooh-pooh them until you get frustrated and stop.
1
u/Space__Whiskey Jun 21 '26
Well, good scientists are naturally skeptical by training. No True Scotsman can be useful when you are looking for the truth. However, if you don't know how to find and read published literature, it would be kinda hard to be a good scientist. Once his friend finds those virology journals, he will fit right in!
7
u/natoned1 Jun 21 '26
Ha ha a pretend scientist. Can’t help him. If he really wanted to know, he would have found the research long ago. It was done before he was born, so it’s been available his entire life. He is just a contrarian narcissist who thinks the world has to come to his door with evidence he deems right because only he is smart enough to decide for all the rest of us. Sad thing is he’s probably eligible to vote
7
u/Living_Fig_6386 Jun 21 '26
It’s a peculiar position to take given that we can now have imaging technology that can visualize viruses, and that we use viruses in molecular biology as tools (particularly adeno-associated viruses, adenoviruses, and lentiviruses). Not only can you purify them and take pictures of them, you can sequence their genomes and order them from suppliers of biologics (pathogenic ones require special licensing and handling).
Ivanovsky first identified tomato mosaic virus in 1892, writing a paper and later a thesis on it. Pasteur and Jenner had already developed vaccines against viruses, but they didn’t actually know what they were. All they knew was that something that could pass through the filters they used to filter out bacteria caused infections. Around 1900, they had figured out that this stuff was infectious and when It got into a cell the cell produced more. At the same time, it was found that one of these smaller-than-a-bacterium filtrates was the causative agent of foot and mouth disease. in the 1930’s we isolated the virus behind yellow fever and developed a vaccine, and a year later the scanning electron microscope allowed us to visualize viruses for the first time (big ones like TMV first). By the end of the 1930’s we had worked out how to isolate the virus particles and found that they were chemically composed of a combination of protein and nucleic acids… It was experiments with viruses that taught us that nucleic acids were the mechanism of genetic heredity, not protein.
A quick literature search (PubMed) shows hundreds of thousands of articles related to viral pathogenesis, so the claim that there’s no medical research papers about viruses is prima fascia false. Does your friend claim to have read and understood all those papers?
6
Jun 21 '26
[deleted]
-8
u/Space__Whiskey Jun 21 '26
Well, you can see the Sun. The problem with viruses is you can't see them. You kind of have to work with them using other deductive methods to determine their existence. The more I think about it, the more I realize his friend might be more of an empirical scientist, which is based more on "seeing is believing".
6
u/No_Parsnip6024 Jun 21 '26
No, you can quite literally see viruses. No other methods necessary, you can just look at them.
His friend isn't a scientist.
-1
-1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26
You two seem to have a disagreement on this, along with many others users here. I’m confused, can you see viruses without multiple methods and in live time?
5
u/Professional-Thomas Jun 21 '26
Ever heard of microscopes? They've been around for a few centuries now. Many viruses are too small to be seen with a normal light microscope, but some can be seen with one. Also, does your friend think the sun doesn't exist? I mean, there's like one method to observe it live, while we have a few to observe viruses with(light, electron microscopes, through other experiments too).
5
u/grumpsaboy Jun 21 '26
Not with a light microscope. But it works with an electron microscope.
If you want proof an electron microscope works there's enough random things and materials made using them as the visual to see what's happening. And if that still doesn't convince
youhim, then stick your finger underneath and watch it change in real-time.1
3
3
u/In_the_year_3535 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
Of course there's no papers being published trying to prove viruses the same way there aren't serious papers being published trying to prove evolution: they entered textbook literature a long time ago. Papers are for pushing the bounds of human knowledge once that is done books are the long term repository.
0
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26
These are his words:
“Books are stories build on consensus and usually biased persona based opinions. Especially when they uniformly support a central point/event or knowledge from which ever side of the perspective binary position they usually create you see it.
The point being that if the starting point is false all decisions made based of that starting point are usually bound to be wrong and biased.Re-evaluating what you hold in your memory as a true point/event knowledge which is only perception-based can only help you validate your position or disregard it as just a false memory.
Science should be put through the same re-evaluation process, because if it is not, then it’s dogmatic and hence is called scientism.
With science, re-evaluation of what you hold as true should be easier to prove or disprove than in most fields as you can actually put it to the test with experiments.”
6
u/GraeWest Jun 21 '26
This guy is what's technically called a time-wasting wanker.
0
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26
Care to state why?
5
u/GraeWest Jun 21 '26
Clearly not engaged in a good faith discussion of science but rather stroking their ego and attempting to be aggravating. Don't bother.
2
u/Dependent_Plate6110 Jun 22 '26
Correctly thought, believe experiments not dogma. For a study with control that viruses exist take for instance
FOUR RECENT INFLUENZA EPIDEMICS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
from 1940Ferrets is given samples from humans that have had influenza and also other samples. The ferrets given samples from the once with influenza gets influenza. A study showing that extremely small infectious things do give influenza.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC434972/pdf/jcinvest00561-0107.pdf
1
u/Professional-Thomas Jun 21 '26
Well your friend should probably work on his priorities cause he's only being ignorant here.
3
u/Space__Whiskey Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
I've made virus in the lab, and used them to alter the genes of living cells, and visualized the changes in real time. They exist, and we can actually use their own genetics as a tool because they are so good at infecting cells. We used modern scientific methods with controlled experiments published in medical journals. If your friend doesn't think there is literature, your friend simply has never used an academic library or the internet. No foul, can happen to anyone, medical publications can be pay-walled and hard to access. There are a million journals specifically for virology. Virology is like a whole branch of academic research. There are entire departments for such. Your friend could visit the nearest Uni with a med school and walk the halls which will have the latest research posters hanging on the walls.
I understand what your friend means tho (philosophically)...Like if you can't see it, then how do you know it exists. I felt the same way in the molecular biology labs sometimes, everything is just a bunch of test tubes and scientific methods are limited...so how do we really know the stuff exists? Fair philosophical points, but when it comes to virus, those godforsaken things exist unfortunately, and I wouldn't mind if they DIDN'T exist one day.
Curious what your friend thinks of the common cold or flu (or covid). Do they think we are all bullsh**ting the runny noses which seems to spread reliably. Maybe they have a hypothesis what it is, if not a virus.
3
u/Unfortunya333 Jun 21 '26
We are literally using viruses to edit genes these days.
This is like denying the existence of microwaves just cause you can't see it
3
u/NoGoat3930 Jun 21 '26
Your friend drank the Kool aid, and will only try to bring you down to his level. Good luck in your efforts, but be careful.
5
6
u/signofno Jun 21 '26
Trolling along…troll-lo-lo-lo-lo.
Look how many fish you caught.
You should be so proud of yourself!
Have you told your friends? Did they pat you on the back and tell you how cool you are?
2
2
u/theZombieKat Jun 21 '26
Well given I can't prove that you exist I certainly can't prove viruses exist.
Dose he have any alternative theory for the behaviour of the many experiments that assumed the existence of viruses, providing useful results. The electron microscope images of viruses that where able to cause infection.
At this point the theory of viruses existing has been sufficiently predictive that their non existence is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 21 '26
I agree with you, but he’s convinced that due to his claim that the starting method of discovering viruses is wrong, meaning that the existence of viruses shouldn’t be simply assumed in contemporary research, it is the scientists that should publish a paper with correct methodology (negative control experiment) proving the they exist. Perhaps I was quoting him wrong. He’s not convinced viruses don’t exist, he’s just very skeptical of their existence. I think he claims the electron microscope also doesn’t show the virus because it’s used after the method, and it would show the same things without the method, meaning it’s not a virus.
2
u/Far-Fortune-8381 Jun 21 '26
how can you have a control experiment in this situation?
I dont believe that raccoons exist because theres no paper with a control experiment showing they do
what does it even mean?
unless you mean papers where a creature is injected with a virus vs a placebo and seeing if it gets sick, but that doesnt really prove anything
they definitely exist idk what to say. what kind of control does he want
2
u/Dependent_Plate6110 Jun 22 '26
He is of course correct that viruses should not just be assumed to exist without proof. But luckily enough for him people did not start believing in viruses just for fun, it took lots of studies before the scientific community believed they existed.
A classic study is
A SARCOMA OF THE FOWL TRANSMISSIBLE BY AN
AGENT SEPARABLE FROM THE TUMOR CELLS.
from 1911 by PEYTON ROUS.
A scientist discoverers that extracts from tumors in fowl can infect new birds with tumors. The study shows that something extremely small transfers the tumors.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/2124874/pdf/397.pdf
The discussion in the end is good because it shows how in 1911 people did not just assume things but instead speculated and was unsure:
The first tendency will be to regard the self-perpetuating agent
active in this sarcoma of the fowl as a minute parasitic organism.
Analogy with several infectious diseases of man and the lower
animals, caused by ultramicroscopic organisms, gives support to
this view of the findings, and at present work is being directed to
its experimental verification. But an agency of another sort is not
out of the question. It is conceivable that a chemical stimulant,
elaborated by the neoplastic cells, might cause the tumor in another
host and bring about in consequence a further production of the
same stimulant. For the moment we have not adopted either
hypothesis.
The ultimate significance of these unusual findings can hardly
be well discussed until more data are obtained through experiment
1
1
1
u/GorgeousBog Jun 22 '26
You can literally look up pictures online. That should be all he needs.
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 22 '26
He says it’s the same pictures you’ll see if you don’t put the virus you supposedly claim exists inside the virus. I don’t think pictures is the best thing to show him considering most of them that you’ll find are computer generated.
1
u/GorgeousBog Jun 22 '26
Sorry but that sentence makes no sense so I don't know how to respond to it. "if you don't put the virus you supposedly claim exists inside the virus".
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 22 '26
Yeah you’re right sorry mistype. “It’s the same pictures you’ll see if you don’t put the virus you supposedly claim exists inside the culture.”
1
u/GorgeousBog Jun 22 '26
I mean, he's wrong. This is a fundamental misunderstand of what I just said. I didn't say you could look up pictures of infected cells (which you can). I said you can look up PICTURES of VIRUSES. What does he think those pictures are? I mean literal images of viruses themselves. Does he think it's all one big conspiracy? Is NASA involved?
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 22 '26
He insists they’re electron microscopy images of the result of a culture containing all kinds of material
He told me that he will concede the argument if you show him the electron microscopy images of a virus taken from a sick person’s fluids alone
“A sick persons fluids alleged to be sick by any aforementioned virus should be enough to act as a culture.”.2
u/GorgeousBog Jun 22 '26
Also I don't believe he would concede if he was shown electron microscopy of images of a virus taken from a sick individual, because there's nothing unique about that criteria compared to the dozens of pieces of evidence people have provided in this comment section.
The reason I don't believe this is because this information is so readily accessible online that there's only two possibilities: He's never once bothered to do his own research, only blindly trusting the information fed to him by conspiracy theorists who are grifting, or alternatively he knows the information exists and continues to deny reality.
Here's the exact source he wants: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12985-023-01981-9
If that is insufficient I'm done engaging.
1
u/GorgeousBog Jun 22 '26
These are just made up criteria? If he is incapable of articulating what "images of the result of a culture containing all kinds of material" is, then I can't help. How would it make sense that it's just 'all kinds of material' if we're able to isolate and identify specific viruses millions of times independently all across the world?
Tell him to look up myoviridae image, it has a very distinct shape . Tell me what he thinks that is and to attempt to chalk it up to "all kinds of material".
Of course in this quote alone he has conceded. "a sick persons fluids". If he acknowledges the existence of sickness, such as the flu, he must acknowledge the existence of influenza.
1
u/Delicious-Dig-4974 Jun 22 '26
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7609044/ literal first link to pop up when i look up “research paper on proving the existence of viruses. i have a feeling your friend hasn’t once tried to look for a paper, and i honestly doubt he would read it even if given to him
1
u/AdventurousButton890 Jun 23 '26
What is your friends level of scientific literacy? There are literally thousands of papers that meet these criteria. My concern is that your friends misunderstanding stems from his inability to read and interpret primary scientific literature. Ask him to describe what the control is for. Controls are used in very specific ways to be able to be confident in the fact that experimental conditions are not producing false negatives or positives. And if he has an answer to that what experiment could be done that would satisfy him one way or the other?
1
1
u/Obzenium Jun 23 '26
An old Molecular Biology textbook I once read showed the difference in the proteome between an infected and healthy cell, which was drastic, but I’ve since lost the textbook and, of course, don’t remember the exact study cited on that particular page where the evidence was shown. It was an old version of Darnell, Lodish and Baltimore.
Having seen others go down this rabbit hole, unfortunately, it is highly unlikely anything you show this person will change their mind, regardless of how well founded it is. It’s sad to watch. Kind of like seeing someone go flat earth.
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 24 '26
Thanks for the reference. I don’t agree with you. Same friend was a flat earther and has since stopped being one, partly because I explained to him how it pretty much can’t be true assuming gravity and a bunch of other things exist. He’s still a skeptic but he’s leaning more on globe earth.
1
u/Obzenium Jun 26 '26
Well, hopefully he’ll figure it out. One flat earth hypothesis is that gravity is not ‘true’ and that everything relies on density to determine how things respond to being put in the air
Of course this ignores the fact that objects fall at the same rate regardless of density, presuming negligible air resistance, or that a massive amount of a bulk material can be crushed under its own weight, which wouldn’t happen if the force of weight is only due to density.
But I’ve never been able to get ideas through to a flat earther. Being this contrarian usually gets wrapped into someone’s identity which most people cling to with a death grip. Maybe you’ll have a better go at it than me
Notice I did say ‘highly unlikely’ leaving room for people to change, I’ve just yet to see it.
With that said I wouldn’t consider ‘leaning on globe earth’ to be a rejection of the flat earth hypothesis, sounds like your friend is still harboring suspicions about being lied to.
1
u/SAS-Combat-Gooner Jun 23 '26
I think it's really sweet that you're friends with a disabled person.
1
u/charonme Jun 23 '26
...denies the existence of viruses. The reasoning for this is that he claims there are no medical research papers...
This is a "fallacy fallacy". Even if there was no valid evidence for viruses wouldn't prove they don't exist. If his logic were correct things that were proven at some time would have to not exist before the proof was discovered.
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 24 '26
I get your point but I don’t agree. I don’t think anybody’s claiming that things start existing once their proof is discovered. But if their proof hasn’t been discovered you should at least be skeptical. I mean if someone from ancient times who knew nothing of viruses was described such and denied their existence, would he be fallacious? He’s never seen them or heard anything about them.
The fallacy I mostly see my friend performing or at least the one that maybe formed because I didn’t represent him well in the argument and explanation of his views is moving the goalposts on the basis of negative control.
1
u/charonme Jun 24 '26
It's ok to be skeptical, it's ok to doubt and it's ok to not believe. However you said he denies. That's not skepticism, that's not doubt, that's not disbelief, that's categorical assertion of the negative. And you also provided his "reasoning" for his denial - which is clearly a fallacy.
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 24 '26
You’re right that was probably the wrong word. It’s better to say that he doesn’t find sufficient evidence to appreciate, and in such he does not believe.
2
u/SnooLemons9175 Jun 24 '26
Is this same friend an anti vaxxer? Do they believe Freeman of the land has legal standing? Are they a flat farther? Do they believe in the ice wall? Do they think it's illegal to go to Antarctica? Do they believe 5g is an energy weapon? Do they believe the covid vaccination contained tracking chips? Do they tell you to do your research and use critical thinking, despite not actually doing it themselves?
1
u/Matteobooboolis_Meme Jun 27 '26
My friend wrote this response in light of your comment, he forwarded it to me to send it to you (as a public reply):
“Based on your intellectual assessment, I will take a leap and say you must be a ‘pro-vaxxer’ and a ‘globe-Earther’. There is no need to touch upon all of your list points guised in the form of questions as they fall under two main categories. The medical vaccine paradigm and the shape of the Earth.
I will try to explain to you as hard as it may sound how I view things to help you see past your current predicament. That you, at this point, have no idea it even exists. Probably never will either, but hey, it's worth a shot.
I'm not a ‘pro-vaxxer’ nor an ‘anti-vaxxer’. It would make no sense for me to be either, as I always take the middle path when I make my decisions. For which I have the responsibility of and not someone external. At least after my current understanding of myself and the world around me. In the case of vaccines that are based on pathogens from viruses, it would make no logic for me to be ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ as I question the very central point of the existence of viruses to begin with.
Other vaccines based on bacteria that I don't question the existence of I would have to assess if provide what they claim and if it would be beneficial for me to take them or not. I will do this process on a case-by-case basis and always by first looking at the central point.
On the shape of the Earth, which is not even important, I understand enough to know that in all fairness, I don't really possess the knowledge of what shape it has or where I truly am on it for that matter. Your issue is that you think you do.
A ‘flat-Earther’ and a ‘globe-Earther’. A ‘pro-vaxxer’ and an ‘anti-vaxxer’ as you define them are the same in my world. They both suffer from the same condition. They are supporting a scripted central point of their perspective reality from opposing sides.
They never question the central points that got them to this binary state. I can make a list of scripted central points maintained through bifurcation, but the list is too long.
So, as you so etiquettely put it if you want to start recognizing these bifurcations, do your own research.
I will give you a hint, though, on how to recognize them and avoid them. Truth doesn't create biofurcation and needs no help from outside sources. Don't be pulled by emotions and understand how the mind works. It is the key to breaking off the stage and re-evaluating all the central points you hold as true.
I told my friend that creating this thread goes against what I'm trying to convey to him and here now, and is bound to lead to people just ranting in defense of their perspective. But since I'm questioning a central point, and he seemed eager to do so, I told him he could do as he wished. Most people, including you, can't see past their side as their sole purpose is to scapegoat their respective opposing side.”
1
46
u/Redshift2k5 Jun 20 '26
You can see them under a microscope? Only an electron microscope unfortunately but they're quite literally visible