https://rumble.com/v13jt4t-science-pseudoscience-and-the-ger...
> especially now that we have shown mRNA vaccines work
Right, they dropped from 100% effective to 30% effective in the first weeks, then requiring boosters. They totally lied/oversold them. And everyone got "it" anyway. How does that mean "they work"?
Also they do not look at truly isolated samples of viruses: they look at concoctions of monkey kidney cells, bovine fetal serum and more with the supposed virus in there. When looking at a concoction like that, what certainty you have you see the virus and not another small biological particle (like exosomes, or dead cell debris)?
Last thing, it seems that with many of these EM photos of viruses, is that the control group was omitted. You also need to bring a concoction that does not have supposed virus in there and somehow show that does not contain the visual element that ARE seen in the sample with supposed virus. Virologists disagree and are okay with going ahead without control groups in these cases.
Because a virus looks nothing like cells that would make up any of those organs. When you examine enough samples and suddenly see some cells that don’t look like they belong that’s a pretty good indicator of a foreign body.
Quite simply, not understanding something, or not liking the consequences of it, is not skepticism, it's ignorance. Skepticism requires having good reasons to reject good models/research/outcomes etc. In the Alzheimers case, the reason for skepticism, which many people in the field had, was difficulty reproducing results, and lack of positive outcomes from therapies using that working hypothesis.
Blind skepticism makes you beyond stupid, and eventually turns you into an idiot who watches Alex Jones and thinks your own son is a crisis actor