Thank you to Michael McKay @ Lew Rockwell.
Ton van Helvoort (1996) has recalled Nobel Laureate immunologist and virologist Frank MacFarlane Burnet believed that prior to the late 1950s virology did not exist as an independent field of research.
So it does seem as though virology has had a dubious origin, kind of like a fiat origin. I say it exists, therefore, it exists.
Why don’t defenders of virology ever want to discuss the history and foundations of virology when they try to defend it?
Even though researchers said that they were studying “viruses” in the late 1800s, virology was not accepted as a “science” until the late 1950s.
Before the 1950s, “viruses” were merely a concept.
It wasn’t until Andre Lwoff astoundingly stated “Viruses should be considered as viruses because a virus is a virus” that this concept was *simply accepted as fact* & virology journals surfaced.
In other words, the field of virology did not exist before the 1950s.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369848616300061
Now we know that Virology is a pseudoscience built on logical fallacies, corrupted experiments, and the overwhelming laziness of those so-called virologists to examine its fraudulent historical and scientific roots.
You can easily learn this for yourself by going HERE if you are a scientific researcher or medical professional.
If you are new to this topic please go HERE.
