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:
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.
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?
Are you aware that all such trivial and easy experiments during the Spanish flu and later during the polio epidemic failed? They had symptomatic patients in close contact and sneezing multiple times in healthy subjects' faces (who weren't exposed to the disease prior to that) and couldn't get a single person sick. They tried injecting them with mucous and even that failed. Those experiments proved said diseases are not contagious, meaning the contagious pathogen hypothesis goes down the drain. So what now?
From 1933 to present day, virologists have been unable to present any experimental study proving that influenza spreads through normal contact between people. All attempts were met with failure.