I will concede the point. I will also concede that confirmation bias exists. Most things we do are based on belief. But whilst it's important to question the information we receive, it's also true that some sources are more reliable than others. This is why I would always side with science over faith. Anything that is experimentally verifiable and reproducible, and that has been peer-reviewed, is (to me) more reliable. I don't trust politicians at all, but I trust scientists more, especially when they are recognised as experts in their field. If I wanted my teeth fixed, I would visit a dentist rather than a carpenter. If I wanted someone to diagnose why I keep getting headaches, I'd visit a doctor rather than a plumber. If I wanted someone to explain about a viral pandemic, I'd trust renowned epidemiologists rather than politicians. The science is there, and it's not just one or two scientists, it's an overwhelming consensus. This is the crucial point, the weight of numbers.
Thank you for your thoughts.
It's not an overwhelming consensus. It's only overwhelming when that is the only thing looked at.
I would, seriously, like to see one or more medical or research reports that show the literal breakdown of the process steps they used for identifying Covid-19. For example, something like this:
- we extracted some fluid from a lung of a sick/dead person by such-and-such a process;
- we added a small amount of saline (or other) solution to the extracted fluid to make it filterable;
- we filtered it using 300 nm (whatever) filter material of the xxxx kind;
- we centrifuged the filtered material using a
"Smith&Wesson" (
) centrifuge;
- we drew off substances at several levels of of the centrifuge;
- we checked out the substances in an electron microscope to identify which of them might be viruses;
- we injected the resulting virus material into 100 (or more) test subjects for each virus, to see how many would get sick from which of the viruses;
- we extracted some fluid from each of the sick ones, and subjected it to the above, isolating process;
- we compared the isolates of each subject to the original - electron microscope;
- we found that all sickened test subjects had an overwhelming amount of the virus we tested them for.
Plus... when we find the test reports that have the process listed - whatever process they used - we need to be sure that they didn't do something silly, like missing the filtration part near the beginning.
Note that this process will still leave questions about whether or not the virus in question is the problem... especially if we don't have 100% of the test subjects getting sick. There should be some kind of correlation between the percent of sick subjects, and the danger of any virus in question.
We need researcher's names and locations so that we can figure out if they are renowned or not. We also need their info so that we can send it to various other doctors - like Dr. Andrew Kaufman - so that these others can check it over and contact the researchers about discrepancies in their processes. After all, there are millions of reports, so one done correctly might be hard to find among the others.
If you can point out the place in any reports where this has been done, and link the reports and the location of the info, I would certainly be thankful. I am not even asking for you or anybody to post the information here like I asked
franky1. Let's get to the bottom of this whole thing.
What if nobody has really, with certainty, identified the Covid-19 virus? But rather, all they did was to do some work which pointed in the direction of it, without the proof.
EDIT: Note that my test process, above, is not entirely a process used by the medical. The revision of Koch's Postulates done in 1937 by Rivers is a good one. But there are others that might be better, that have been developed since Rivers'. Which process did the Covid-19 researchers use to identify Covid-19, and where can we find info about it?
