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:
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?
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.
Do you even know what his experiments are? Here are the postulates: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koch%27s_Postulates.svg Do you see the second healthy mouse? That's called a control.
The hypothesis is that the suspected pathogen can be cultured and then inoculated on a healthy animal which will lead to the same pathology which according to him proves causation. The limitation of his method is that it can't prove infection happens in vivo and it also doesn't isolate the pathogen from the culture mixture before inoculation, meaning we can't be sure what is causing the observed effect - the suspected pathogen or something else in the sample tissue.
So yeah, Koch is not ideal but it would still be a huge improvement over what we have now in terms of virus isolation.
You either have no clue what you're talking about or you're trolling me. Just take the L and admit you have more research to do.