Idiot.... I said you start by proving CONTAGIOUSNESS.... I didn't say you start by assuming a microscopic pathogen that only lives in human cells.

Are you by chance retarded or just a common liar? The study told you they couldn't produce the disease by exposing healthy subjects to symptomatic patients , meaning they couldn't prove contagion, to which you replied:

Okay so now we're just going to pretend that neither of us have ever first hand witnessed a single flu case spread through an entire office, school, or home?

And I logically pointed out this observation tells you nothing of how and why the disease occurs - you're assuming contagiousness but you haven't proven it hence it's begging the thing in question. Are you playing dumb with me running in circles? How are you supposed to do science when you can't do logic?

What proof?! You presented "Koch's Assumptions" and called that proof.

Then you changed the goal posts and said they couldn't get Spanish flu to spread with a citation of "trust me bro".

Lying like a dirty gypsy once more. But why? No one else is reading our little argument. Look back at who brought up Koch in the first place. Then look at what I replied. I've already quoted it a couple comments ago:

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?

Then I did provide a source of my citation about the Spanish flu, you disingenuous little bitch. And you refused to comment on it but instead went on deflecting about Koch's fake and gay assumptions (sure I grant you that) as if my argument hinges on them.

I'm done here.