i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
I am not stating what others believe. I am stating what I believe. I believe DNA fragments and sequences "exist." I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that these particles are the cause of disease. The reason I stated what I did, was to encourage Steve to "debate" on the only issue that matters, (whether it's been proven to cause disease) rather than on the issue of whether a particle "exists."
Many people on the "no virus" side of this, only want to argue that these particles do not exist at all, when the answer to that question is irrelevant. Even assuming "existence" there's not evidence they cause disease. So yes, it would be wrong to call them a "virus" if your definition of a virus requires that, standing alone, it can cause disease. But the nomenclature is all messed up here. People have different definitions of what constitutes a "virus."
i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
I am not stating what others believe. I am stating what I believe. I believe DNA fragments and sequences "exist." I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that these particles are the cause of disease. The reason I stated what I did, was to encourage Steve to "debate" on the only issue that matters, (whether it's been proven to cause disease) rather than on the issue of whether a particle "exists."
Many people on the "no virus" side of this, only want to argue that these particles do not exist at all, when the answer to that question is irrelevant. Even assuming "existence" there's not evidence they cause disease. So yes, it would be wrong to call them a "virus" if your definition of a virus requires that, standing alone, it can cause disease. But the nomenclature is all messed up here. People have different definitions of what constitutes a "virus."