Responses to a comment by Emma at substack.

 My responses in yellow highlight.

Nope. Virus deniers need to take a reading comprehension course. Why don't they actually read the text? This isn't a matter of science; it's a matter of basic logic. Hesperado was asking for the basis of my argument—specifically, why Mike’s denial of transmission implies a denial of toxins as well. He wasn't asking why Mike denies toxins. Read it again.

I don’t think Ruth Pelzer was telling you what you were saying; I think she was just pointing out her view.

There isn't much difference between bacteria and viruses. The reason they fiercely target viruses is that bacterial cell structures can be clearly observed even with a standard optical microscope; their existence was established back in the 19th century and is widely accepted, making it hard to deny they are real.

This could be the reason why they target viruses and not bacteria. But there are two sides to this coin. Just because bacteria can be seen and have been verified doesn’t mean that viruses must also be verified even though they can’t be seen. I think it’s not unreasonable to withhold affirmation of a claim until you get proper evidence for it, which in effect is what the No Virus camp is doing in this regard (even if at times their rhetoric suffers from flaws). It’s sort of analogous structurally to what recent atheists do: Instead of making the claim that there is no God, they say they lack adequate evidence of God. Now, there are different positions in the No Virus Camp. I’ve been watching this long multi-part series put out by them, which features many different voices--doctors, nurses, scientists, & other kinds of specialists--speaking in that video, and some of them do exactly what I just described. They don’t make the positive claim that there are no viruses, but they focus on the evidence problem which seems to handicap the Virus Camp.

 

Viruses, on the other hand, are hundreds of times smaller; their forms can only be seen using specialized electron microscopes. Deniers exploit this fact—that the average person can't see them with their own eyes—to spread the propaganda that viruses don't exist. After all, if they denied the existence of bacteria too, they’d be dismissed as lunatics.

The second reason they single out viruses for denial is their infectious nature. While bacteria are also transmissible, bacterial infections are relatively easy to treat with inexpensive antibiotics. Viruses, however, mutate rapidly, making it difficult to develop treatments; since mainstream science focuses on vaccines as the solution, these deniers claim viruses don't exist simply to justify their opposition to vaccines.

Some in the No Virus Camp might be solely motivated by creating a movement to oppose vaccines, but others don’t seem to have that sole motivation. For these others it’s much broader & deeper than that, imputing malevolent corruption in mainstream medicine that would do such a thing (if true).

 

But the thing is, viruses, bacteria, and toxins are essentially the same sort of thing. The only reason they don't deny the existence of toxins is that toxins aren't contagious. This isn't science; it's confirmation bias. They’ve already reached a conclusion and are simply cobbling together a theory to fit it.

You seem to persist in looking at this from only one direction.  For many (it seems to be most) in the NVC, they grew from an initial puzzlement about why there was such a broadly disseminated narrative—with powerful sociopolitical effects—about viruses built upon the weak foundation of insufficient evidence. They continued piecing this puzzle together and realized that contagion seems to be a central component in the whole narrative.  Then they marshal evidence from mainstream journals indicating that contagion has never been adequately proven scientifically.  Often I’ve noticed they’re not the best communicators in contexts where there are skeptics.  What they should do at every turn is rivet the focus of the disussion back on the evidence for viruses and for contagion, but often I’ve noticed that gets lost in the complexity & emotions of interactions with various advocates of the VC.

 

That’s why I say distinguishing between the two amounts to a double standard. When rejecting government disease-control measures, they claim viruses and contagion don't exist—denying external factors in the onset of illness—yet when opposing vaccine passes, they argue that vaccines pose a danger, which is clearly an external factor. This argument defies coherent theorization. It isn't science.

Here, you are conflating ‘external factor’ with contagion.  Yes, contagion is an external factor.  But not all external factors are contagion.  If I kill someone with a bullet from a gun, that’s an external factor, but it’s not contagion.  Same thing you do with germs vs. toxins.  Yes, germs are (or carry) toxins; but that doesn’t mean all toxins are germs.

 

[That’s all for now.  I may or may not address the rest of your post.]