Hello to you,

no matter which theory one follows, it is always the case that individuals put their worldview into the rejection or acceptance of a theory.

Some biologists say that the number of viruses in organic bodies is so high that you have to write a superscript after the number. Millions or even more viruses are said to be harboured by our bodies. Against this background, the question arises that if I have "recognised", say, one or five per cent of the viruses, what about the other 95 %? What I do not know or have not identified, I cannot treat. Now, those unknown viruses, are they all deadly or severe damaging, or mild influencing? When does the moment come, when an unknown must also be seen as deadly, if not, when it is "found so"? I see no logic here... because, after all, it remains neutral until its determined not to be neutral?

One would have to think this through to the "end" and I only ever come to the conclusion that a final knowledge of all viruses is simply impossible. If you add the mutation theory, then it would be a race to the bottom that as soon as a virus was genetically identified, it could in turn have already changed and, moreover, you would have to be able to determine patient zero for every so-called outbreak. An impossibility from my point of view.

I do not agree with the world view that life is a battle and a competition alone. The theory of competition cannot exist without the theory of cooperation. The way in which what is considered harmful interacts with what is considered useful, and how exactly the processes unfold, are largely beyond human knowledge, because the unknowns cannot be included in the calculations. That's how I see it, anyway.

Greetings to you.