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:
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.
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.
are you aware that such trivial and easy experiments with COVID-19, the flu, the common cold, gential herpes, and HIV will not fail?
bro I'm honestly done debating primitive 1800s borderline pseudoscience with you.
Do yourself a favor and try to learn some science from the last hundred years.
Now reevaluate the truth of that statement without the arbitrary and undefined modifier "normal contact".
are you saying the disease cannot spread to anybody under any circumstances? No, once again you're cherry picking arbitrary criteria.
"Nobody has proven the cold is contagious.......Over a radio broadcast."
"nobody has ever proven HIV is transmissible..... from a wink and a nod."
"No one has ever proven a virus can infect people.... After being removed from all living cells and killed on a petrie dish."
Give me a break, you clown.