Talk:Virus

	This Biology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Calling

Okay, I'm calling a vote. I think this article doesn't meet any of the four parts of the mission statement. Remembering that RW is not a general encyclopedia, I think we should 86 this article. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Science that has direct supporting relevance to vaccines. ^sshole 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Eighty-six this

1. I think this article doesn't meet any of the four parts of the mission statement. Remembering that RW is not a general encyclopedia, I think we should 86 this article. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep and expand

1. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
2. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 23:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Blue (is useful) 23:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
4. ^{d hominem} 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
5. --Dumpling (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Тy^talk 00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so…

I've started expanding and improving this. However, I will very shortly be taking a WikiBreak, meaning I won't be able to finish it, so if anybody else could pick up where I left off, that would be great. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 05:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Virus disbelievers

Having encountered one I presume it is 'more energy than it is worth' trying to convince them of the error of their ways.

However, this person said that with the post-WWII polio vaccine there was something 'wrong' with the polio vaccine ('it wasn't stirred enough'); and also that it is significant that the coronavirus arose where the 5G network was being developed in China.

Comments anyone? Anna Livia (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We do have an article on germ theory denialism which may have some useful tidbits, I guess. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It was more about the statements in the second paragraph.

The point is in knowing those who can be persuaded of the error of their ways in such cases and those who will not. Anna Livia (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Most conspiracy theorists "want to believe", so no, they usually cannot be persuaded. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We all want to believe 'various things' - including 'my pet (mad)/harmless theory.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)