> I'm bringing up the lack of existance of viruses even fewer times than the mainstream media and alternative media bring up the presense of it. The only reason why I bring it up more than necessary is because I'm rather tired of it all, we (we as in the entire civilization of the earth) used to start and stop scamdemics, but for whatever reason now we seemingly only know how to start them and not stop them. It's just that every time I say "the fake virus that doesn't exist", you come up with a counter agrument, which is fine, but every single time? So please, don't tell me that I'm the one who starts this war! I'd prefer to end that "war" (if you can even call it a war) if anything.

Since it is a rare theory and you seem confident (it's like some sacred light in the dark), I am very curious on this topic, but you never give (convincing) explanations to support the no-virus theory, other than "it can't be isolated so it doesn't exist", yet we agreed there is "something", just that we don't like how it is named, or how it is used for fearmongering (which I think is a better point, rather than whether virus exists or not). But I will refrain from asking it again after this post.

If you feel tried of that, I think we should stop circling around, and we don't need to read long and boring papers for this: If virus are not real then what are they doing in the lab and the whole field? Are the virus samples fake?

> I don't mind if you believe it exists or not, worse is that there are people out there who are still outright afraid of it, which is what ultimately keeps this bullshit going.

If you simply want to stop this bullshit going then I suggest you shouldn't stick to the "no-virus". This path requires a lot of researches and effort to convince others. I already asked some simple questions above, and if there's no convincing answer then the argument would be invalid, which will make you look bad (and against your goal), unless you just want to enjoy the feel being an anti-mainstream hero. There are just better arguments against scamdemics than the "no-virus".

Simply, it is not goodness if we need to be punished when we reject their goodness. We don't know what really is inside their goodness. For example, someone can drop some poison in a cup of water, but we can't tell whether it's really a drinkable water or not, and they proof it's safe to drink because the fact water is safe to drink. If anything goes wrong, we ourselves are going to take the risk and the effect can be permanent. If people are that "stupid" to reject the goodness then it is their right, and it is good to purge stupid people.

It's also surreal to think that those in power are there to serve the underlings.

Some good quotes:

"Imagine a vaccine so safe you have to be threatened to take it -- for a disease so deadly you have to be tested to know you have it!!"

"COVID vaccine mandates are necessary because the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn't protect the protected."