- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Covid 19 vax helps to cure cancer according to peer reviewed study
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:43 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 10/27/25 at 6:43 pm to lsupride87
Nobody gives 2 shits about cancer. If they did we would have cured it.
If they came out and said the shot would cure ED and you would gain 4 inches literally everyone would be juiced.....today
If they came out and said the shot would cure ED and you would gain 4 inches literally everyone would be juiced.....today
1
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:10 pm to Usmc
Cancer is part of the biz model.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:16 pm to Hognutz
I’m not ruling it out.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 7:20 pm to Hognutz
lol, no, that's as pointless as arguing with flat-earthers like Revalator on this board.
If these germ-theory deniers want to persuade someone, they should stand behind their beliefs like James Randi did when he overdosed on a whole bottle of homeopathy sleeping pills at the start of his stage routine or like when Barry Marshall gulped down a vial of helicobacter pylori to help prove it causes gastric ulcers.
These baws should offer to let ID docs run through Koch's postulates with their own bodies - some could even take vaccines first and see if they offer protection. Who wouldn't want to watch a livestream of Dr. Mike left to his own devices alone in a biohazard level 4 room after having been injected with smallpox and ebola? The establishment would be so owned.
If these germ-theory deniers want to persuade someone, they should stand behind their beliefs like James Randi did when he overdosed on a whole bottle of homeopathy sleeping pills at the start of his stage routine or like when Barry Marshall gulped down a vial of helicobacter pylori to help prove it causes gastric ulcers.
These baws should offer to let ID docs run through Koch's postulates with their own bodies - some could even take vaccines first and see if they offer protection. Who wouldn't want to watch a livestream of Dr. Mike left to his own devices alone in a biohazard level 4 room after having been injected with smallpox and ebola? The establishment would be so owned.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 8:14 pm to TigerDoc
A lot of blah blah...take the challenge. You won't because you will be exposed like Rybicki and everyone else that tried.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 8:20 pm to Hognutz
Why would let someone smear ebola on me? I believe it kills people.
Do you?
Do you?
Posted on 10/27/25 at 8:38 pm to TigerDoc
Virology is pseudoscientific nonsense. Take the challenge, doctor, unless you're scared.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 8:40 pm to Hognutz
I don't care about Stone, but I do care about members of this board, of which I've been a member >20 years.
Would you like to talk about why virology is legitimate?
Would you like to talk about why virology is legitimate?
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:05 pm to TigerDoc
I'm no expert like Mike but I've seen enough to realize the same thing Grok AI says, it's built on logical fallacies and circular reasoning. I just think you would get destroyed vs Mike Stone like the rest and you know it. If you really wanted to help this board and destroy the arguments against germ theory for their benefit, take it to someone much more knowledgeable like Mike Stone then share the dialog here.
Here, read it again:
Answer from Grok:
Proving viruses exist and cause disease without assuming their existence in the methodology or committing logical fallacies like circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, or reification is challenging and, under the given constraints, appears impossible. Early virologists like Dmitri Ivanovsky (1892) and Martinus Beijerinck (1898) used filtration to show that tobacco mosaic disease was caused by an agent smaller than bacteria, which passed through filters that retained bacteria, but they did not directly observe or characterize this agent, initially hypothesizing it as a toxin or fluid. Subsequent methods, such as electron microscopy (1930s), cell culture, and genome sequencing, rely on identifying particles or genetic material assumed to be viral, often inferring causation from correlations with disease symptoms or cytopathic effects in cell cultures. These methods assume viruses exist in their design (e.g., culturing "viruses" or sequencing "viral" genomes), risking circularity. Koch’s postulates, adapted to establish causation, often involve isolating and reintroducing the agent, but virus isolation assumes the agent’s viral nature, and fulfilling all postulates for human viruses is ethically or technically infeasible. No method fully avoids assuming viruses in its premises or reifying "virus" as a concrete entity without direct, independent verification of its existence and effects. Thus, while virologists got close through correlations and indirect evidence, no proof fully meets the criteria, as all methodologies embed assumptions about viruses, making a logically rigorous, fallacy-free proof unattainable.
Here, read it again:
Answer from Grok:
Proving viruses exist and cause disease without assuming their existence in the methodology or committing logical fallacies like circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, or reification is challenging and, under the given constraints, appears impossible. Early virologists like Dmitri Ivanovsky (1892) and Martinus Beijerinck (1898) used filtration to show that tobacco mosaic disease was caused by an agent smaller than bacteria, which passed through filters that retained bacteria, but they did not directly observe or characterize this agent, initially hypothesizing it as a toxin or fluid. Subsequent methods, such as electron microscopy (1930s), cell culture, and genome sequencing, rely on identifying particles or genetic material assumed to be viral, often inferring causation from correlations with disease symptoms or cytopathic effects in cell cultures. These methods assume viruses exist in their design (e.g., culturing "viruses" or sequencing "viral" genomes), risking circularity. Koch’s postulates, adapted to establish causation, often involve isolating and reintroducing the agent, but virus isolation assumes the agent’s viral nature, and fulfilling all postulates for human viruses is ethically or technically infeasible. No method fully avoids assuming viruses in its premises or reifying "virus" as a concrete entity without direct, independent verification of its existence and effects. Thus, while virologists got close through correlations and indirect evidence, no proof fully meets the criteria, as all methodologies embed assumptions about viruses, making a logically rigorous, fallacy-free proof unattainable.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:13 pm to Hognutz
This is moving the goalposts of scientific reasoning to deductive certainty. There are probably many scientific theories you accept that also lack this level of certainty.
While we don't have certainty for any of them, we rely on them every day.
The right standard is inference to best explanation - it's how we believe in things like thermodynamics, gravitation, relativity, etc.
While we don't have certainty for any of them, we rely on them every day.
The right standard is inference to best explanation - it's how we believe in things like thermodynamics, gravitation, relativity, etc.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:14 pm to Hognutz
Inference to the best explanation, look into it.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:16 pm to FutureMikeVIII
Yes! Great minds... 
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:17 pm to TigerDoc
Look, if you tell me there's a threat, an actual particle I can't see, you need to prove it. Trust me bro doesn't work.
Again...
Thus, while virologists got close through correlations and indirect evidence, no proof fully meets the criteria, as all methodologies embed assumptions about viruses, making a logically rigorous, fallacy-free proof unattainable.
Again...
Thus, while virologists got close through correlations and indirect evidence, no proof fully meets the criteria, as all methodologies embed assumptions about viruses, making a logically rigorous, fallacy-free proof unattainable.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:19 pm to Hognutz
His criteria is not the right criteria. If you want to accept that criteria, be ready to throw out most of science.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:33 pm to TigerDoc
Let's talk about what they actually do to establish causal relationships between viruses and diseases.
Different clinical teams find common patterns in presentations of diseases, collect samples from relevant tissues/organs (e.g. from bronchial wash from lavage from the novel disease in China). Independent labs in different parts of the world can each visualize the pathogen with electron microscopy to reveal consistent distinct particles that correlate with disease and disappear when infection is cleared.
They can do genetic sequencing - i.e. viral genomes can be extracted, copied, and tracked as they evolve, allowing contact tracing through molecular fingerprints.
Then they can work toward inferring experimental causation by introducing purified viral material reproduces disease in tissue culture and animal model systems. Antivirals and vaccines can be designed using viral genomes prevent or treat disease exactly as the viral model predicts. It's been done dozens of times and it doesn't work by the old 19th century methods anymore.
Different clinical teams find common patterns in presentations of diseases, collect samples from relevant tissues/organs (e.g. from bronchial wash from lavage from the novel disease in China). Independent labs in different parts of the world can each visualize the pathogen with electron microscopy to reveal consistent distinct particles that correlate with disease and disappear when infection is cleared.
They can do genetic sequencing - i.e. viral genomes can be extracted, copied, and tracked as they evolve, allowing contact tracing through molecular fingerprints.
Then they can work toward inferring experimental causation by introducing purified viral material reproduces disease in tissue culture and animal model systems. Antivirals and vaccines can be designed using viral genomes prevent or treat disease exactly as the viral model predicts. It's been done dozens of times and it doesn't work by the old 19th century methods anymore.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:35 pm to lsupride87
Still not taking that garbage.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:35 pm to TigerDoc
Again you ignore the bolded part.
Anyway, not sure why I respond if you're just going to ignore everything and make declarations.
There's no way you even bothered looking at Mike's challenge if that's your response. In fact not one challenger has made that claim that I'm aware of.
How about Dr. Sam Bailey's challenge, same thing or you didn't bother there again? You're defending a faith, not facts.
Anyway, not sure why I respond if you're just going to ignore everything and make declarations.
There's no way you even bothered looking at Mike's challenge if that's your response. In fact not one challenger has made that claim that I'm aware of.
How about Dr. Sam Bailey's challenge, same thing or you didn't bother there again? You're defending a faith, not facts.
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:37 pm to Hognutz
You're holding up two charlatans as authorities. You think they're Galileos, but they're just chumps in the disinformation food chain.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:40 pm to TigerDoc
So you have nothing but cheap shots. You're fos. Both of these people would hand you your arse.
I would never listen to doctors like you. I'm 62, in great health, never had a flu shot, damn sure no cv19 poisonous shots, great blood work, no meds, etc... because I don't listen to the advice of the likes of you.
You are the charlatan here.
I would never listen to doctors like you. I'm 62, in great health, never had a flu shot, damn sure no cv19 poisonous shots, great blood work, no meds, etc... because I don't listen to the advice of the likes of you.
You are the charlatan here.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:44 pm
Posted on 10/27/25 at 9:42 pm to Hognutz
No, and you certainly won't.
I'm glad you're healthy and it's fine to be angry at the public health response, but people can be pilled into avoiding antibiotics with this nonsense. It's foolishness.
I'm glad you're healthy and it's fine to be angry at the public health response, but people can be pilled into avoiding antibiotics with this nonsense. It's foolishness.
This post was edited on 10/27/25 at 9:54 pm
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News