Rational debate can be respectful if we stick to the facts.
What about phylogenetic trees? A phylogenetic tree is a diagram intended to represent the relationships between different species based on a comparison of their physical and genetic characteristics, in this case the viral genomes. Thus, the claim is that the genomes of the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 viruses are so closely related that they coexist in a phylogenetic tree. However, we just noted that the first genome identified, the NIH reference genome, was from a single patient and the viral origin was not verified. The genome was generated from tens of millions of 150 base pair sequence products assembled de novo into sequences. Even then, about 1 million sequences were specifically compared to previously identified pathogenic agents, i.e. viruses, bacteria, etc. It was a highly biased search, revealing that two of the longer sequences closely matched a bat-like coronavirus genome. The homology was about 90 percent. This means that 10 percent didn't match, and that's not trivial when you're dealing with a genome of about 30.000 base pairs. There were also many other sequences of various sizes with similar or higher homology to other known sequences. Without isolating a virus to know its genome comes from, how can you separate viral and endogenous human nucleic acids from endogenous microbial nucleic acids or something else? It is likely that the original SARS-CoV-1 genome was identified in much the same way, so any relationship between the two is highly coincidental and based on biased approaches. Therefore, it is impossible that kinship or proximity in a phylogenetic tree can provide evidence for the existence of a virus.
We don't have to agree on everything, but if we want to have a rational debate, it has to be respectful. It's too easy when there's so much at stake to fall into direct criticism, but we need to make sure we steer clear of personal attacks. Anyone, regardless of scientific background, can be empowered to have an objective view of these issues. If the goal is truthful, more involvement from a variety of people with different points of view is preferable. In the end, it's the evidence that matters, not just belief, and if viruses are real, there should be plenty of evidence to prove their existence. We call for open investigation and debate on all evidence of viruses by anyone interested in the truth.
Logical, rational thinking and the scientific process depend on clarity of thought and a strict examination of every assumption. These are lacking in the current scientific community. For example, as we described, it is not logical, rational, or scientific to claim that a phylogenetic tree of in silico (i.e., computer) genomes proves the existence of a virus when the original genome did not come from a purified, isolated virus. as acknowledged by the author of this original genome. Nor is it logical, rational, or scientific to claim that bits of an organism (e.g., the "spike protein," genome, etc.) prove the organism's existence if the intact organism has never been found, isolated, and purified. Rational, logical people would never make the mistake of claiming that part of a hoof came from a unicorn, unless they first proved the unicorn's existence.
Virologists seem to have forgotten or chose to ignore these basic principles of rational, logical thinking. Ultimately, this leads to conclusions and actions that are not compassionate. If you believe in imaginary disease-causing viruses, whether engineered, natural, or lab-created, you'll end up locking people in their homes, forcing them to wear useless masks, injecting them with poisonous substances, and end up costing the lives of millions. and put millions of people at risk. That is the opposite of compassion. They have called the concept that invisible particles cause untold numbers of diseases in humans and animals the "viral theory." This theory is false and lies at the root of a misconception that threatens to destroy our lives. It's time for it to go away.