@ohellno
Just the very existence of immune system disproves entire germ theory.
This whole bit of unintelligent dribble can be disproven in all of 2 seconds.. take a pH strip touch it to a chicken pox sore quickly, and see if it shows an extremely low pH, which of course, it will not.
People love to make up whatever bullshit sounds right to them and fits the world they want to make up in their head and really have no intention of taking even a moment to verify it, if they did they might find out they were wrong and their ego can't handle that.
I am not the one making outlandish claims, so I have no need to test their absurd theory... They indicated a theory without absolutely no evidence to back it up, evidence that would be trivial to gather. The lack of evidence and effort means the theory is not based on observed evidence but pulled out of their ass. That pattern alone is more than enough for me to discount it.
Now if they actually bothered to do **science** and test their assertions and presented that as part of their claim, then it would be less outlandish and would be a legitimate reason to expect scientists to repeat the test and see if the theory of acidic secretions has any basis in reality.
Its like me saying "Oh by the way unicorns are real, I can prove it because a bunch of poop you find in the woods has rainbows shooting out of it!"... and the nthem demanding scientist show we have done extensive studies disproving poop with rainbows coming out of it.. Its not mine or any other scientists wackadoo theory, so its not my obligation or that of other scientists to put any effort into it.
You can beleive whatever you want, but you are wrong and you look like an idiot for thinking otherwise.. Of course you think you are right, so feel free to do a study and get it peer reviewed. You will fail (Because your ideas are bullshit) but if you happen to gather any actual evidence then youll prove me wrong.
As for all the "evidence" disproving germ theory.. I've spent a lot of time int he past reading through many people who have came and claimed that and debated it.. all of it was complete idiotic nonsense, and not one bit of it held up to existing knowledge or understanding.
The hundreds of thousands of scientists working with viruses every day already prove its legitimate, most of what they do wouldnt work or make any sense if viruses werent real
> "They can't all be wrong"
No I'm not. I'm basing it on the fact that I have seen and understand what they do in the lab, how they verify things, the scrutiny that goes on, and seeing with my own eyes and repeating some experiments on my own to know that what they say works, works. things that would never and could never work if viruses werent real.
> There are plenty of references and resources available on my site. So if you want to believe in viruses rather than dig in and find answers then do be it.
As I already said, I've already dug in plenty of resources, and they are all written by morons who dont know the first thing about logic or how to "prove" even the most basic things. I have no expectation that your claims are anything new that I havent already seen. However if you wish to bring your evidence into this conversation, go for it. I've done enough digging to know its idiocy, but if you happen to be the one person arguing this shit who has some real evidence, feel free to try to bring it.
> I would rather base what i know to be true from evidence, so enjoy your day.
Clearly not, there is a mountain of evidence and you seem to be pretending like it doesnt even exist, meanwhile you have presented none for your outlandish bullshit.
Good day, I certainly have no time for shoveling your bullshit
And has that experiment been proven or debunked? quoting an observation from 100 years ago doesnt get you very far unless you can show that int he 100 years since experiments have consistently proven it to be true... you do realize 1919 medicine without any reflection on the 100 years of evidence after that is not proving anything right? What do the other 100 years of experiments say?
When did I say I didnt?
More importantly though, I'm not the one trying to make a convincing case, you are. Do you really expect people to go off and invest time in researching an outlandish claim that relies on the entire world of scientists being in on some perpetual conspiracy theory for 100 years without strong evidence to back that up?
Your evidence is one random guy from 100 years ago who claimed to observe something, before they even had the tools to make good tests in the first place. No one is going to go research your flat-earth level bullshit off of one random dude 100 years ago saying he saw something as your "evidence"