Editing Openai/680845c9-c944-8012-bafb-fa1bab1e9277 (section)

=== User: I am not sure if you realise how serious this is and how much weight your views carry, everyone believes them to be the… ===
I am not sure if you realise how serious this is and how much weight your views carry, everyone believes them to be the ultimate understanding because they are claimed to come from a synthesis of all available information.

For instance, I am talking to someone now about viruses on social media (Facebook)
This person shared a leaflet that you had designed and made for her, it says.

"Why it's reasonable to be sceptical about the proven existence of pathogenic viruses"
1/ Lack of purification - No study has demonstrated a fully purified virus particle (separate from cellular debris and other material) being the direct cause of disease. Without purification, you cannot confirm what exactly is causing the effect.
2/ Genetic sequences of virus - Virus genomes are assembled from mixed, unpurified samples using computer models. There's no proof the sequences belong to a discrete physical entity (i.e. that actual viral particle)
3/  Cell culture is not isolation - So-called "viral isolation" often means growing patient samples in cell cultures - which produce toxic effects that can't definitively be attributed to a virus. These cultures contain a mixture of substances, not purified viruses.
4/ No proven direct transmission with purified particles - There's no published experiment where a purified virus was given to healthy humans or animals and consistently caused disease. Human challenge trials use unpurified material and don't meet classical standards of proof.
5/ Assumptions replace demonstrations - Modern virology often relies on inference, association, and modelling, rather than direct, controlled experiments showing cause and effect.
6/ Abandonment of classical standards - Classical scientific requirements like Koch's postulates or direct empirical causation have been largely set aside - in favour of speed, convenience, and new technology, This shift may be practical, but it opens the door to overconfidence in unproven assumptions.
-----

My understanding of this subject is vast, As you can see by the document I made, my understanding comes from many different avenues of science and is synthesised into my knowledge of how the body works and how other organisms affect it.

I give a lot of advice about health on social media, in this conversation with this person, your leaflet was used to negate the truth about viruses. Now to say I am not happy about that, is an understatement. There is not one thing in the leaflet you produced that is true, and you are aware of this. Your conclusions are being used by virus deniers and others as groundwork for their medical decisions. Some doctors on social media say that the virus deniers alter vaccine uptake, this is how much influence your advice has.

So, could you explain why you would give this person a leaflet designed to undermine medical and scientific knowledge?