The following was posted as a comment on an FB discussion (link).
The comment responded to is at the end.
Chris, your point is well taken. You acknowledge that biology/virology/immunology make assumptions and assertions arguably exaggerated, making their work of questionable merit.
However, Steve is trying to highlight different aspects which you are missing. Take, for example, your comment,
“[They] have a wealth of data programmed into their heads. They’ve mastered techniques to interact with materials in laboratory situations and know a lot about computer number crunching. They can recite physiological pathways and have images of cell structures …”
Agreed; they do all these things. But the question is, will it make them science experts or scientists? No, they would be biologists, virologists, and immunologists, but NOT scientists. This is the confusion people have that if someone does a lot of lab work, crunches numbers, and writes reports/publications, they become science experts or scientists.
It is not like that. Science is reserved for working with specific subjects (physics, chemistry, and mathematics). I describe it here (link). It works with fundamental units of matter/substance (atoms and molecules), which are diligently isolated, purified, and characterized, and offers a unique ability to conduct controlled experiments.
Biology/virology/immunology do not and cannot conduct such controlled or scientific studies. However, if they like to study biology at the molecular level, they must get help or learn science/chemistry.
For example, virus isolation, purification, and characterization, considered substances/particles, fall in the science/chemistry domain for studying and must be done by science/chemistry experts or true scientists.
However, this is not the case; biologists do this “science” work themselves and call it molecular biology without knowing or learning the molecular (science/chemistry) aspect. They claim to isolate the “viruses” but only have culture (junk/gunk) samples and consider them isolated and purified viruses. How dumb and stupid!
On the other hand, when pointing out the bizarre practice, they will shout back and claim science/chemistry experts are living in an older world. In the new and modern “science,” isolation is done this way or not required, meaning they have created their version of science (fake and false) but like to claim and credit for the actual science/chemistry -pretty sneaky and clever!
The same goes for other aspects, like computing, data wealth, cell structures and their images, etc. Undoubtedly, there is a wealth of data, but is it valid and scientific? Sorry, not at all. I can explain it in detail if needed.
Briefly, the data is based on the so-called “virus isolates,” not on the “isolated virus” (which they assume and are meant to be link), making all the data false and invalid for any actual scientific purpose. This is one of the reasons for the retraction of thousands of publications, as Steve mentioned.
Therefore, biology will remain biology (and other sub or associated disciplines) and cannot be claimed as a science or science subject.
———————————————————————————————-
Chris Hemmings
I still feel that this is too aggressive a stance and deeply unlikely to have any other than negative outcome on the debate – just close debate off entirely, in fact. To make inroads the opposition needs to get the mainstream – or some of them – to listen.
These guys are very well trained – yes, indoctrinated – and have a wealth of data programmed into their heads. They’ve mastered techniques to interact with materials in laboratory situations and know a lot about computer number crunching. They can recite physiological pathways and have images of cell structures. Also, its unfair to suggest their researches are not reproducible as so much of it absolutely is. Time and time again.
However, I agree totally that so much has today, and for many years, been corrupted. I often argue this to be because they make fundamental false assumptions – eg, that Jenner was correct and his vaccines actually were effective. All the work since then has assumed this totally implausible rule. How can any of their work make sense?
Similarly virology based on the assumptions of the presence of infective superparticles of such demonic capabilities. Everything that follows is, thus, assuming an unproven tennet – a fatal flaw for any research activity, in whatever subject.
Microbiology makes some of the same assumptions (and has virology as a sub discipline, of course). However, many microbiologists do very useful science and their work cannot be so harshly dismissed. Immunology I have personal experience of – I’ve worked in this field – and although they again make unfounded assumptions – as if they read about immunochemistry in The Haynes Manual of Immune Physiology! – there is very reproducible work exploring all manner of inter and intra cellular activities.
We cannot simply diss biological science because rogue elements have taken over its headline areas in recent years. Might as well say there’s no real politicians, no bankers, no school teachers, no police etc because they are all corrupted…….