I haven't read the entire debate, but I did read this last comment, and this sentence struck me. Because, saying that, is like saying "If your immune system is strong enough to beat polio, then you don't have to get vaccinated as a kid against polio." Is that a valid assumption? Of course not. Not to mention the amount of people you'll be endangering by spreading it around.
Also this... why would you say this? This intrigues me; What possible connection is there between you boasting yourself publicly, and the validity of your arguments? I'm a firm believe that humility is what drives you towards useful knowledge, not vanity or pride.
I don't disbelieve you. But, let me ask you something, are you a doctor? Do you have a degree or any kind of formal education in healthcare, genetics, virology or immunology? Do you talk with specialists and doctors about this? If you said, "I talked with my buddies, and they are specialists (or students) healthcare and know what they're talking about", then it would make some sense as you were influenced. You wouldn't be right, but it would make sense why you'd believe certain things. But what you say here is "I researched a lot, therefore I'm right because I put a lot of effort and thought into this". That's an invalid argument, beacuse it doesn't support anything, you still need evidence on the genetic level. I you're saying "I researched a lot, therefore I have a lot of authority and you should believe me" then it's also invalid, because anyone could be wrong. Finally, I think what you're saying is this "I have too high of a pride and too little intelligence to admit I may be wrong, therefore I am absolutely 100% right, and will not budge". Well, fine. What's the point in beleving in absolute truth? You'll never learn anything or improve your thinking. It's how a fundamentalist religious person thinks. I mean, what do you say to a mind like that?