Is Virology a bonafide science? Not according to a biomedical scientist, who argues that Virology is a Fraudulent Pseudoscience and is a dying field.
Virology is Out of Control
by Simon Lee, Science Officer at Anew UK.
Most people regard virology as a bona fide hard science. But is it really? Does virology follow the scientific method?
The steps of the scientific method include:
Observe a natural phenomenon.
Suggest hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
Select independent variable (the presumed cause).
Select dependent variable/s (the observed effect/s).
Control variables.
Test/experiment.
Analyse the observation/data.
Validate/invalidate hypothesis.
Following the scientific method begins with observing a natural phenomenon, postulating a hypothesis, and then determining the independent variable (IV) which is the presumed cause, the dependent variable (DV) which is the observed effect, and controls for experimentation.
Scientific controls are used as a check and balance system in experiments when researchers are attempting to determine the cause of an effect. Controls are designed to ensure that the presumed cause (independent variable) is the only thing that could be causing the observed effect (dependent variable).
Controls allow one variable or factor to be studied at a time. It’s crucial that both the control and other experimental groups are exposed to the exact same conditions apart from the one variable under study. This allows for more accurate and reliable conclusions to be drawn from the experiments.
Virology Refutes Itself
Virologists only starting natural phenomenon is people who have similar symptoms.
Up until 1952, virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme that poisoned the body and that it somehow multiplied in the body itself and could spread in the body as well as between people and animals.
However, these suspected viruses could not be seen directly in diseased tissue using electron microscopy. It was also acknowledged that even healthy animals, organs, and tissue released the same breakdown products during the decomposing process that had previously been misinterpreted as “viruses”.
For decades virologists failed in their attempts to purify and isolate the assumed “virus” particles in order to directly prove the existence and pathogenicity of these particles. Virologists only had indirect evidence of decay from human and animal tissue culture experiments claim.