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:
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?
Then explain to me why it doesn't involve actually putting samples from healthy animals through the same exact process it says should be done to samples from sick animals?
If It did involve that, Koch would have discovered asymptomatic carriers decades before Typhoid Mary.
Here we go again, confirming that this entire topic is not relevant to your claim that viruses aren't real.
First off, I'll say the fact that it's called "Koch's postulates" and not "Koch's experiment" ought to be a very big clue to you that this isn't what you think it is.
19th century scientists did not choose their labels arbitrarily, and "postulate" means something very specific that totally undermines your attempt to use it as any kind of proof for anything.
Postulate means ASSUMPTION! And things are not proven with assumptions.
That being said here is the answer to your question....
You first start by devising an experiment that proves contagiousness, which is absolutely trivial and easy to do. You just start by recording the fact that the disease can be transmitted from person to person.
Then you continue demonstrating contagiousness over and over again, as you record the disease moving farther and farther away from patient zero.
Along with proper controls this will demonstrate that whatever causes the disease is self replicating, based on the simple fact that dilution would effect the concentrations of any poison or contaminate as it moves more and more steps away from patient zero.
However, if you can demonstrate that patient 1,000 is just as contagious as patient-zero, then you are at the same time establishing that whatever causes the disease replicates inside the body and isn't subject to being diluted as it's transmitted from person to person.
Okay, so now you've established that there is something self replicating and contagious that makes you sick.
Now you can devise other experiments that involve testing and culturing samples from the sick people to see if you can find any differences between their samples and that of a healthy person.
Before you know it you're discovering viruses and performing experiments to determine in what environments they can live and replicate.
This is how science works. You don't start off with 4 statements and base everything around merely assuming they are true.
You don't get to step #50 where you discover the virus can't live on it's own, and then assume that invalidates all the other 49 steps.
You start with the absolute most simple and basic things you can prove for a fact, which are NOT POSTULATES.... and you continue building new ideas that you can prove on top of that foundation.
Which by the way, is exactly how germ theory of disease was developed.