Well, thanks for your feedback.

It would only look absurd to those fully programmed with the contemporary, trendy worldview - people who have a ton of unrecognized pseudoscientific assumptions and confusing that with provable facts or the scientific method itself.

What is absurd to me is when someone repeats the same old tired logic of the evidence is somehow buried or implied in the sheer volume of studies out there!

The assumption is: They can't ALL be wrong! Of course they can be. Since when is the majority right by definition? I find it more likely all people taking part in those "studies" have the same worldview baggage you seem to, because it is part of our culture. And of official education.

You ask me for "proof that viruses do not cause illness" which is sort of like asking for proof that Santa does NOT bring gifts through the chimney.

I cannot prove he doesn't, I can only point out the lack of proof for Santa himself.

If you choose to believe in his existence because some neighbors claim they have heard him - that is fine, but don't make it seem like you are on logical high ground here solely because you have the backing of an indoctrinated and hypnotized society and I do not ;)

What I am criticizing in my post is the absence of PROOF that pathogenic viruses exist at all. I have not seen any convincing evidence for it and have instead heard very good cases against that notion. The jury is still out - you know, the way science should work!

What I instead get all the time is a vague reference to the majority stance on any topic, rather than concrete evidence. This is science, not politics. And majorities do not mean anything when this is about evidence not about fads or popular opinions.

I am saying, the evidence for your assumptions is missing and has never been delivered but rather assumed. So it is on the virus believers to show pathogenic viruses do exist, and not on me to show they don't.

I am not talking about "studies", you can study all sorts of fictional ideas and relationships all day long, and academia often does.

Maybe we differ in that I share my best estimation of a subject after diving in and thinking long and thorough about what I found. You on the other hand refer to a consensus of experts, implying to me that your worldview is not based on immediate experience and your own discernment but rather on the outsourcing of your interpretations to people and vested interests you have never met or talked to.

If you feel comfortable believing the priests rather than reading the holy book yourself that is fine. I do not.

If you are truly curious about the whole story of this most enormous pseudoscientific blunder, that dub will be released in the near future. This 1994 lecture by Willner is only a tiny puzzle piece of the story and will not substitute for using your own mind and discernment.

Sorry for the mouthful