we've established that you put your faith in what you have been told by others. that is believing. not knowing. i'm not interested in your beliefsi'm asking you to prove your claim that you know the virus exists to be true. believing what others have said isn't proof of you knowing. only that you believe. i've never said anything about suitably qualified medical professionals. you are making up more lies. it may be good enough for you to have faith in what others say but that is not knowing. that is just believing. thanks for admitting that you only have a beliefyou claimed that you know the virus exists. it is not my belief. it is your job to prove your belief. you can't. you are admitting that you only have faith in what you have been told by others. that is not knowing. that is believingYou made a claim that the virus doesn't exist and were asked to prove how you know it to be true. You replied that the only people capable of knowing whtehr the virus exists or not are virologists and similarly qualified medical professionals who had personally worked on the virus. This would amount to a few thousand people worldwide.
I pointed out that every single one of these people say that the virus exists. Given this how can you claim that the virus doesn't exist? With what evidence do you make this claim?
The problem here is that we both have different standards of proof. My standard is that if every single public health/senior medical person/senior government person responsible for dealing with the virus says that the virus exists then that's good enough for me. That's proof beyond reasonable doubt, the standard adopted by educated humans in civilised countries over many centuries who have constructed our systems of justice and arbitration. I'm not picking some specious standard here to try and qualify a shaky assumption or guess as to whether the virus exists, I'm literally using the accepted standard used in every modern society.
Your standard is significantly higher than mine which is why you think that my standard isn't proof enough that the virus exists and the reason that we're having this disagreement. Your standard of proof is that only suitably qualified medical professionals who have personal hands on experience of the virus can say whether the virus exists or not.
Luckily both of our standards have been met! Every single qualified person who has had contact with the virus says that it does in fact exist!
So we both agree that the virus exists. Well done.
We've established that both our standards for proving whether the virus exists have been met. Now all that's left is to work out what fucked up pathologies in your head don't allow you to accept the evidence.
What would constitute proof that the virus exists in your opinion?