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:
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.
either make the argument for why kochs postulates are a legitimate scientific experiment or go the fuck away.
identify the hypothesis and the control group. explain to me how the experiment validates the hypothesis.
put up or shut up.
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.
I just wanted to say thanks for confirming that you're full of shit, presenting unscientific nonsense that has absolutely no relevancy to the claims you are making, and can't defend any of your ideas when they are actually challenged.
Edited reply:
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
It's just a graphic showing that he ASSUMES there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1, and also invalidating #3 in the process as well.
So let me get this straight.... Koch's postulates are not intended to prove or disprove the existence of viruses?
You're telling me they are actually testing whether or not said virus can reproduce and re-infect people in highly specific artificial conditions, after being removed from all living cells?
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it's not even testing?
And lastly, What do you have to say about the fact that Koch himself abandoned postulate #1 and postulate #3 in his own lifetime, as new information became available to him?
Of course it is. The experiment is whether a sample from a healthy animal, lacking the suspected pathogen will give the same result as the sample from the infected animal when cultured. Then he inoculates the healthy animal with the culture from the diseased animal and if we observe the same pathology, then Koch concludes it's the bacteria causing the disease. What other control would you expect? To inoculate another healthy animal with a pure culture? Provided the culture is neutral (and not full of toxic drugs and cancerous cells as in the virus culture they're using) this is redundant.
Here we go again - Koch didn't work with viruses, but with bacteria he could observe. His experiment doesn't make sense in the case of non-observable pathogens. Bacteria (or rather germs) do exist. Koch never had to prove their existence because he could take a sample from an animal, having symptoms of a disease, and see the germs under a microscope BEFORE culturing it. That's not the case with viruses, and that's why it's existence is dubious.
It's like I'm arguing with a wall. Just try being good faith for a change. Did I appeal to Koch? What I said was:
Since we both agree Koch's postulates were not devised for proving the existence of a non-observable pathogen (and are not ideal for proving causation for that matter) stop trying to red-herring me into defending Koch and his fake and gay postulates, and give me a scientifically sound experiment that can be used for that. You're the one arguing viruses exist and cause disease - ok how do you prove that claim?