ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies
ViroLIEgy 101 is a series of articles meant to provide relatively short (by my standards) and concise explanations of key concepts regarding both germ “theory” and virology.
I’m providing an overview on topics that are essential to the conversation that people may be confused with and have difficulty understanding, or areas that seem to be controversial when engaging in discussions with those defending the germ “theory” of disease.
The field of virology is considered a cornerstone of modern medicine, and the widespread acceptance of “viruses” as causal factors in disease is driving the rise of a powerful pharmaceutical industry, one that has profitted greatly from the production of countless vaccines and various medications to combat these invisible “pathogenic” entities.
Despite employing every available method to control these outbreaks, the incidences of emerging and re-emerging “viral” diseases are continually increasing every year.
Many excuses have been given as to why these “protective” measures are failing to combat and reduce “infectious” disease including globalization, urbanization, environmental changes, population growth, socioeconomic factors, “antiviral” resistance (i.e. medication failure), and my personal favorite, “viral mutation and evolution.”
While it should be evident that injecting and consuming toxic substances to fight fictional entities cannot lead to lasting health, there is a deeper reason for why these measures continue to fail. Beneath the surface of its seemingly rigorous methodologies, virology rests on a foundation built upon flawed logic.
At the core of virological research lies the assumption of an invisible pathogenic entity, with the “gold standard” cell culture experiment frequently portrayed as conclusive evidence of “viral” existence and pathogenicity.
Yet, when one examines the methods closely, this experiment at the very heart of the field is fraught with logical fallacies that permeate deep into the core of virology—namely begging the question, affirming the consequent, and the false cause fallacy.
Interestingly, I have found that when confronting defenders of virology with criticisms of the field’s inherently fallacious logic, they often resort to the same flawed reasoning embedded within its foundational experiments.
This creates an inadvertent perpetuation of the very fallacies that undermine both the field and their position, resulting in a cyclical pattern of flawed reasoning.
When the defenders of virology engage in this kind of circular reasoning, they are failing to address the fundamental flaws within the methodology while reinforcing the shaky foundation upon which the entire field rests.
In other words, their defense of virology is constructed with the same logical errors that plague the experimental methods used by virologists, thus making any attempt to justify the field’s conclusions inherently flawed.
Frustratingly, those who defend virology often appear oblivious to their engagement in logically fallacious reasoning.
This may stem from an educational system that prioritizes memorization and obedience over critical thinking and logic, or perhaps from a lifetime of indoctrination into a flawed paradigm of disease and healthcare.
Whatever the cause, many seem confused about what logical fallacies are and how the flawed reasoning infiltrates their thinking and argumentation. In order to help clear up this confusion, this article will explore the nature of logical fallacies and their relevance to virology.
While it is beyond the scope of this article to address every fallacy, the focus will be on the three aforementioned fallacies that are deeply embedded within the very fabric of virology and its methodology.
To illustrate how deeply ingrained flawed reasoning can negatively impact those who pride themselves on logical thinking, we will examine a recent example that demonstrates how easily defenders of virology can fall into the logical fallacies inherent within a field built upon such errors.
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.