I know, I know.. hang in there!
This is part of The Matrix Series and the subsection called "The pseudoscience of virology".
Influenza is not contagious
Brittanica defines influenza like this:
Influenza is an acute viral infection of the upper or lower respiratory tract marked by fever, chills, and a generalized feeling of weakness and pain in the muscles together with varying degrees of soreness in the head and abdomen.
According to the sources I will present here influenza is not contagious and in my opinion they are so solid that I dared remove the question mark. If your brain is already exploding from the anger that often accompanies cognitive dissonance I recommend checking this blog out after (or maybe better before?) ;)
Also before reporting me as a domestic terrorist please remember that the above statement does not deny that people get sick, and even die, with symptoms labelled as influenza. It does however raise many new interesting questions that any proper use of the scientific method should in my opinion. If this also happens to you I recommend checking out the other sources I link to in the subsection mentioned earlier.
So if you are still reading kudos to you and let us get on with it. The best source and also the most entertaining scientific study I have ever read is by Rosenau, 1919 called "Experiments to determine mode of spread of influenza" caried out during the spanish flu. Here is the best part:
Now that is what I call specific experimentation! For more of the same check out this video:
Now it could be argued, as done by the perplexed Rosenau himself, that his experiments only prove that the sick people they used could not infect the specific healthy people used. The final nail in the coffin for me is presented in chapter 7 in the book "The invisible rainbow: A history of electricity and life" by A. Firstenberg from where I got the above reference. If influenza is indeed contagious and transmitted from human to human please explain this:
Do you still BELIEVE that influenza is contagious by human to human contact? Then the burden of proof is on you my friend to turn belief into falsifiable fact. Show me the data and I will add it to this blog, correct it and thank you for illuminating my dunning-kruger moment. Since apparently this is a challenge not just for influenza why not crush this at the same time:
Please remember that none of my posts are personal vendettas against anyone. I simply go whereever first principles thinking, my curiosity about reality and love for the scientific method take me. Consensus does not equal fact.
Then wtf?!
Influenza as an electrical DISease
In the previously mentioned book Firstenberg presents a strong case that influenza is an electrical disease showing both strong correlation and mechanisms supporting why. Here is a super short summary on correlation from the end of chapter 8:
In each case—in 1889, 1918, 1957, and 1968—the electrical envelope of the earth, which will be described in the next chapter, and to which we are all attached by invisible strings, was suddenly and profoundly disturbed. Those for whom this attachment was strongest, whose roots were most vital, whose life’s rhythms were tuned most closely to the accustomed pulsations of our planet—in other words, vigorous, healthy young adults, and pregnant women—those were the individuals who most suffered and died. Like an orchestra whose conductor has suddenly gone mad, their organs, their living instruments, no longer knew how to play.
For more on this topic and the book check out my blog:
BUT.. "what about vaccines then?!" I hear you scream
On that topic I recommed you to study the data I have linked here:
The third type of test of a hypothesis, experimentation with controls, is somewhat more complicated. If a man had a virus he believed to be the cause of some disease, he might test it by injecting some of it into the members of a group. Even if each person who had been injected came down with the disease, the experiment would not be a scientific one and would prove nothing. The persons injected could have been exposed to another common source of infection, and the injection might have had nothing to do with the disease. In order to have a scientific experiment, we must not inject every member of the group but only every other member, keeping the uninjected alternate members under identical conditions except for the fact that they have not been injected with the virus. The injected members we call the experimental group; the uninjected persons we call the control group. If all other conditions are the same for both groups, and the injected experimental group contract the disease while the control group do not, we have fairly certain evidence that the virus causes the disease. Notice that the conditions of the control group and the experimental group are the same except for one factor that is different (the injection), a fact allowing us to attribute any difference in final result to the one factor that is different. - Professor C. Quigley on the scientific method
Thank you for spending time on my website!
Bình luận