I remember the days before I tried following sources myself. Wistful days full of conviction in the system, knowing that peer review all but guaranteed the best research would bubble up to the top.
Then I did my own research by attempting to trace academic sources back to the primary source. Oh dear me, how wrong I was.
When you understand the first principles of the method, locating the flaws in each study becomes much simpler. For example, find even one study where a supposed virus meets all of Koch’s postulates to fulfill germ theory.
You won’t be able to. No virus ever has met all four postulates, nor will it ever. Viruses had to receive special pleading in the form of relaxed criteria via Rivers and, later, Bradford Hill, in order to qualify as a disease-causing agent.
It’s laughable the extent to which the medical/scientific establishment has gone to manufacture viral threats.
[–] 24900293? ago
Very interesting. I do know that peer review has some degree of bias, but it's often shallow special interest and personal need to gain some notoriety. Occam's Razor dictates that it's usually never some complicated master plan, it's almost always due to human stupidity.
So what is your full theory? Is there a conspiracy to make everyone believe viruses exist when they in do not?
[–] 24903813? ago
My full theory is still very much a work in progress, but several points are consistent whenever I look for evidence