This is getting hopeless. You claim to read but do you realize you have not got familiar with any arguments presented to your belief that you see your alleged unicorns under microscope, since you didn't how do you know it's not correct? That is ad ignorantiam.
>Do I really need to present you a link to a source? I'm sure you know most of them but reject them. Do you want links to the Nature magazine?
You think this is logical? Statement without proof is not argument but blabber. Of course you do, for argument's sake, you have burden of proof! I would quickly show you what you believe is proof in fact isn't. Since you don't allow that i accurately said you are making fallacy against Popper's Razor. I actually know all of them and they are all refuted as having no base in scientific method, and reject them because they are invalid. Question is why you want to neither proof what you claim (truth can be proven, lies can't) neither you want to hear arguments of critics how and where are virologists wrong or outright lie, nor you want to adrees them?
>I was referring to your chemotherapy claim.
But incorrectly. You made strawman about how "toxins know about jews". Article didn't claim that. You couldn't read it. I though you speak German, I have a translation if you need.
>We all went through this.
yet majority of "resistance" doesn't understand anything because of mass stupidization.
>Most doctors don't read those studies cause you have to dig deep to find them. As your link tree showed there was two main stream media articles on the inaccuracies of DNA samples (Yes, I actually look at the texts you send. I don't click on images tho.). That's how science works, you create a theory and then work your way along it for the proof.
Really!? But you apparently click on a lot of images that claim to be of a "virus".
No. They don't read them because they don't understand them, as they use them as arguments. That's idiocy.
And innacuracy is proof of existence? Not proof of unreproducibility which means not science? Doesn't bother you? Proof is something accurate and repeatable/verifiable.
>In some cases you reach a dead end (string theory 😆 sorry dear physicists). In other cases you confirm it but also show the limits of the real life value.
You are derailing into theoretical generalization blabber again. You really don't bother with burden of proof do you? Hilarious jokes you tell yourself where no corruption happens. A corruption denier I could call you.
>Yes, I went to school. Yes, I was mocked and not part of the collective (even before my coming out). I had teachers that welcomed critical thinking and teachers that kicked me out of class for it.
There are two kinds of logic, formal and informal. I like to think that I am decent on formal logic, that might explain some shortcomings on the informal logic.
Wasn't talking about mocking for social traits, but mocking someone who would ask a professor for proof of his claims about the thought subject AKA criticising authority of teacher...
How can you not see then you are making fallacies?
You should have no problem writing your arguments formally then, no way they would come out valid. That is scientific method - control experiment. Popper's razor principle on control that the methodology used doesn't create the desired effect. What virologists don't do for good reason.
I have to sadly tell you, you would Fail 1st semester of Logic, because I had to pass it.
>I looked at the criticism (see one of my earlier comments). It's exactly what you call it, criticism, no proof.
Irrelevant, that was about differnt topic, you did not look because you are not adressing any of the arguments. Like explaining this:
https://void.cat/d/64iDWzeLawa91KT5JJ2Qg1.webp
So, blunt ad ignorantiam again. You want proof from me to nonexistence, that is logical fallacy as well. I am not asking you to proof nonexistence of God either. I am not making statements "viruses" or "genes" exist, you do. You don't understand difference between refuting—showing proof doesn't exist (contained in critical analysis by own contradictory statements of virologists even) & your burden of proof.
>😆 I bet you do, but it might take a few years. Right now I really enjoy my no fuss hairstyle.
Better start ASAP then.
>Since when do wild animals get vaccines? Cancer isn't just a human problem.
"...and Bigpharma" !!, Strawman again you are not focusing. Wild animals wasn't an argument, people were, but be it. Do they also not get sweet treats of ex. chemical spills?
>Imo one of the best inventions for people who read a lot.
I just don't read on holiday. Waste of time not seeing places.
