I know you hate it when I break your idols.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
No thanks, I'm not a lab rat. I've said viruses have never been isolated or proven scientifically to exist but there's still a possibility there. You can't seem to understand the difference between being skeptical of a theory and completely rejecting it as impossible. Why should I believe in a theory without proper scientific proof? Did you get the covid gene therapy too? If not, why didn't you trust the science behind it?
Except you demand someone satisfy "KoChS PoStuLateS" as if that's a real scientific requirement, demonstrating that you don't know the scientific method or even understand what "postulate" means.
Sure I don't. Since Koch was fake and gay also, let's put him and his postulates aside. How does one go about proving a hypothesized pathogen caused the symptoms or the disease observed to fulfil the scientific requirement for knowledge?
if these postulates are real science where is the control group?
Where is the hypothesis?!
It's nothing but a series of absurd demands. It's not even a real experiment.
XxxRDTPRNxxX's Postulates: if you cannot satisfy these then fish are not real.
postulate 1: a fish must be removed from a pond, skinned alive, tuned inside out, and placed in a bucket.
postulate 2: the fish must reproduce inside the bucket.
postulate 3: the new fish must then be dumped into an empty pond.
postulate 4: you must then recapture the same kind of fish from the previously empty pond.
Since no one has satisfied those postulates I just proved fish are fake and gay...Right?
Lol, this is hilarious but at least you tried and finally gave some arguments. Mind you I didn't appeal to Koch's postulates since Koch pulled germ theory out of his ass and used the postulates to justify it. And Kochs postulates include a control group with sample from a healthy organism - you could have at least researched that (but I'm not surprised you didn't).
There are two claims made by people who support viral theory:
Your comparison fails on multiple accounts:
a fish can be observed as a separate living organism. The problem with viral particles is, they cannot be observed and appear only after the suspected tissue sample has been cultured in a complex cocktail of various organic and pharmaceutical compounds.
why would you kill the fish? You're not supposed to destroy the virus when culturing it. It's the opposite - you provide it with an environment where it can thrive.
Koch's postulates are not intended to prove existence of the infectious agent, but rather causation of pathology by the suspected agent. The existence of the agent is presupposed because he studied bacteria, which he could isolate and observe under a microscope.
I won't go on because your comparison is obviously not logically sound. I hope you're not serious with this shit because it's embarassing.