I won't go that far with it, and this is because if I cannot isolate a virus in a lab, how could I possibly go about disproving a thing that I cannot prove exists? As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Additionally, evidence of absence is not necessarily proof of absence.

I appreciated that section in particular. I have been struggling with explaining to those advocating for the non-existence of the immune system, or viruses, etc. why it doesn't sit well with me. You explained it exactly in that one paragraph. Oddly enough it is something I have pointed out about science numerous times.

Science can only be applied to things that can be observed.

It is useless when being applied to things it cannot observe.

Often people will state things do not exist because they cannot observe them.

Then we learn to observe them or create tools that enable us to do so and it turns out they do exist.

POOF did they suddenly come into existence because you could now observe them oh wonderful scientist?

Truth of the matter is stating things do not exist because you cannot observe them has nothing to do with science.

It's opinion.

Likewise stating something does exist that we cannot observe is also not science.

It is opinion, or speculation.

It could be wrong. It could be correct. It could be partially wrong. It could be partially correct.

I don't disagree with the people saying there are no viruses. I simply am not convinced. Though they have made me consider it a possibility which I hadn't really considered before. That is something at least...