Well great, seems like you have zero issues with what you found in either Pasteur or the history of virology, which already shows we are of a different mindset.

How can you not take issue with it, especially if you call yourself a scientist?

I have not worked with petri dishes since my school days, though I still feel free to question - without being an "expert" - whether what you describe as an immune response might be a foregone conclusion on your and your colleagues' part. Which is the question on the table here - the inquiry into the merit of virology.

I know it's not chic to say so but specialization CAN make people blind and overly vested in the ghost they are chasing. Especially if the allegation that the entire field of study in question is up against IS that it is based on an unproven assumption everybody simply took as the truth without verifying it.

Of course it is TOTALLY possible I have no idea what I am talking about, and that you are totally correct! I can always be wrong and I don't mind finding that out! Precisely because I have no stake in the outcome, I just want to know and ask questions until I get satisfactory answers.

If you haven't blocked me by then I would love to hear your takes on the virology criticisms when that dub finally releases.

Thanks for your time.