1. Smallpox and flu vaccines do not work. That is overwhelmingly clear from the historical record. This is well established in the historical record, even if modern medical authorities have chosen to ignore that record. For instance, rates of flu have risen ever since the flu vaccine was introduced. Smallpox incidence has nothing to do with vaccine uptake and that is also clear from the record. Without having looked at Tenanus I would venture to say it doesn't work either, and I would be flabbergasted if you were able to provide proof they do work.
2. It is simply not true that anyone with an EM can pick out viruses and distinguish them from other cellular debris. Here is a quote from the National Academy of Sciences, July 2016: "“It is almost impossible to distinguish extra-cellular vesicles [of many different kinds] from viruses and to separate them…”
3. Which are the scientific theories about viruses that are repeatable you speak of? What makes them scientific? To have a scientific theory, one must begin with an independent variable and then show cause and effect based on that variable. The CPE experiments that have traditionally been used to claim virus existence meet no such standard. They have no isolated independent variable for one. I can do a similar experiment and claim the existence of tiny invisible unicorns. Where and when was it determined that cytopathic effects in a cell culture MUST result from the existence of a virus. Nowhere, that's where. Because it's not true. There are many reasons why a cell culture may show cytopathic effects. Its an appeal to the consequent, otherwise known as a logical fallacy.
4. Your claim that this theory MUST be true because so many people believe it just silly. It's not a conspiracy that everyone believes it, it's a broken paradigm - one that happens to be unbelievably insanely profitable for the pharma industry so it remains financially the central way to get research funds in the field. Everyone believed witches caused baby deaths through incantations 500 years ago. Does that make it true? Of course not. Widespread belief in broken paradigms is par for the course in science. Have you read any philosophy of science? Thomas Kuhn? Any medical history? How do you feel about bloodletting? How about phrenology? Harvard had a huge department of phrenology back in the day. Eugenics was considered solid science until the end of ww2 when it suddenly wasn't. There are tons of broken paradigms at work. Heart disease re: cholesterol and fats and The "Mediterranean " diet is a big one today. Many would argue chemotherapy is a broken paradigm. It was the editor of the NEJM herself who said that 50% of papers printed in her journal are now provably wrong.
5. The paradigm IS falling apart. You are watching it in real time.
6. Pseudo-science means exactly what i think it means. Here is a definition from the dictionary: "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method." That is exactly what is going on here. People think the scientific method is being used. But it is not. There are few if any proper controls applied. Basic logic is not adhered to. Instead, technical processes are repeated (e.g. the cpe process, the pcr process, the EM process, the genetic assembly process) and then these are used to "validate" hypotheses without the validity of the process to do so having been proven. SARS-Cov2 is only the latest example, but certainly an egregious one.
I recommend checking out the video below which reveals the true history of these diseases from the 1800's to the modern day versus the rate of vaccine uptake.
You simply state that smallpox/tetanus/flu vaccines work, but that claim is far from proven. For example, for the flu vaccines, there's no evidence that they prevent hospitalization or death from flu (according to a massive Cochrane meta-analysis). So, what does it mean to say that they "work"? That they reduce mild or moderate cold symptoms? But even if they do, it's not clear that reducing these symptoms is useful. Maybe the body knows what it's doing and is trying to heal, and those symptoms are a necessary part? And maybe the flu vaccines are just damaging that part of the immune system responsible for doing this healing? And what are the effects on all-cause mortality ("nonspecific effects" in the lingo of vaccine studies)? I'm not claiming to know the answers to all these questions. I'm just pointing out that the "vaccines are effective" arguments are based on a large number of questionable assumptions that are never cashed out.
1. Smallpox and flu vaccines do not work. That is overwhelmingly clear from the historical record. This is well established in the historical record, even if modern medical authorities have chosen to ignore that record. For instance, rates of flu have risen ever since the flu vaccine was introduced. Smallpox incidence has nothing to do with vaccine uptake and that is also clear from the record. Without having looked at Tenanus I would venture to say it doesn't work either, and I would be flabbergasted if you were able to provide proof they do work.
2. It is simply not true that anyone with an EM can pick out viruses and distinguish them from other cellular debris. Here is a quote from the National Academy of Sciences, July 2016: "“It is almost impossible to distinguish extra-cellular vesicles [of many different kinds] from viruses and to separate them…”
3. Which are the scientific theories about viruses that are repeatable you speak of? What makes them scientific? To have a scientific theory, one must begin with an independent variable and then show cause and effect based on that variable. The CPE experiments that have traditionally been used to claim virus existence meet no such standard. They have no isolated independent variable for one. I can do a similar experiment and claim the existence of tiny invisible unicorns. Where and when was it determined that cytopathic effects in a cell culture MUST result from the existence of a virus. Nowhere, that's where. Because it's not true. There are many reasons why a cell culture may show cytopathic effects. Its an appeal to the consequent, otherwise known as a logical fallacy.
4. Your claim that this theory MUST be true because so many people believe it just silly. It's not a conspiracy that everyone believes it, it's a broken paradigm - one that happens to be unbelievably insanely profitable for the pharma industry so it remains financially the central way to get research funds in the field. Everyone believed witches caused baby deaths through incantations 500 years ago. Does that make it true? Of course not. Widespread belief in broken paradigms is par for the course in science. Have you read any philosophy of science? Thomas Kuhn? Any medical history? How do you feel about bloodletting? How about phrenology? Harvard had a huge department of phrenology back in the day. Eugenics was considered solid science until the end of ww2 when it suddenly wasn't. There are tons of broken paradigms at work. Heart disease re: cholesterol and fats and The "Mediterranean " diet is a big one today. Many would argue chemotherapy is a broken paradigm. It was the editor of the NEJM herself who said that 50% of papers printed in her journal are now provably wrong.
5. The paradigm IS falling apart. You are watching it in real time.
6. Pseudo-science means exactly what i think it means. Here is a definition from the dictionary: "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method." That is exactly what is going on here. People think the scientific method is being used. But it is not. There are few if any proper controls applied. Basic logic is not adhered to. Instead, technical processes are repeated (e.g. the cpe process, the pcr process, the EM process, the genetic assembly process) and then these are used to "validate" hypotheses without the validity of the process to do so having been proven. SARS-Cov2 is only the latest example, but certainly an egregious one.
I recommend checking out the video below which reveals the true history of these diseases from the 1800's to the modern day versus the rate of vaccine uptake.
https://youtu.be/clJQV9HiPII
You simply state that smallpox/tetanus/flu vaccines work, but that claim is far from proven. For example, for the flu vaccines, there's no evidence that they prevent hospitalization or death from flu (according to a massive Cochrane meta-analysis). So, what does it mean to say that they "work"? That they reduce mild or moderate cold symptoms? But even if they do, it's not clear that reducing these symptoms is useful. Maybe the body knows what it's doing and is trying to heal, and those symptoms are a necessary part? And maybe the flu vaccines are just damaging that part of the immune system responsible for doing this healing? And what are the effects on all-cause mortality ("nonspecific effects" in the lingo of vaccine studies)? I'm not claiming to know the answers to all these questions. I'm just pointing out that the "vaccines are effective" arguments are based on a large number of questionable assumptions that are never cashed out.