Evidence is a contradiction or correspondence with postulates.
F.e. there is theory with postulate that some viruse cause some disease.
This postulate proves nothing and not evidence of anything. This postulate should be checked against reality. If every time somebody get a virus and become ill with that disease, than postulate is correct. If somebody have virus but doesn't get ill, then postulate is wrong and whole theory based on that postulate should be discarded.
Moreover, Koch's postulates is not about existence or non-existence of anything. They are about if some pathogen really a cause of some illness or not. Really any pathogen - poison, bacteria, virus, physical impact, whatever.
Viruses are pretty real, their existence was proven since tobacco mosaic virus study. In that study, every single time when isolated pathogen was introduced into the plant, plant always become ill.
However, today nobody even bother to prove connection between specific virus and specific illness arbitrary attributed to it. There are no any single scientific proof that influenza virus is a cause of flu or HIV is a cause of AIDS. Not a single one. Not even talking about coronahoax, where even existence of SARS-CoV-2 was never proven.
Medicine, instead of becoming hardcore natural science, with hard proofs and mathematically correct theories, like physics, chemistry and like, turned into complete anti-scientific bullshit at the level of astrology or sociology. There are tons of reasons for that turn, and all of them are malicious.
Crazy: The tobacco mosaic virus study is also quite fraudulent. The 'isolated pathogen' was introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.
It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!
introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.
Does not matter. Cause and effect connection was established. Scratching or rubbing without pathogen does not cause illness. At the time people knew about control experiments and all that stuff.
It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!
Now they just do some random and senseless shit, they don't care about anything except money.
Crazy: to your first point... no... When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.
The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.
When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.
That was not about ways of transmission. That was about unknown pathogen that could not be seen with microscope and pass finest filters they have at the time.
There could be tons of hypothesis about ways of transmission, from rain with wind to insects or animals that obviously was not studied in that research.
The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.
That's not the reason to deny any respect for those who tried to bring some science into that discipline.
Throwing out babies with the water is not a good way to change things. Medicine could and should become real science, but mocking over past attempts to do that does not help. Imagine if modern medics, on suspicion of some new pathogen, do the same things as Ivanovsky did with tobacco mosaic disease - could all that swine flu hoax, corona hoax and all other shit be possible at all?
Dude did everything he could at the time as real scientist. He did pretty logical and scientific experiments. But instead of making him an example for discipline, you just making things easier for modern swindlers.
The methodology of the study wasn't designed to test transmission methods. They needed a 100% transmission rate because the experiment was testing if a substance caused a disease. Can't test effect without limiting variables, transmission rate being a major factor to CONTROL, not TEST.
Nose: Honestly, the best source on all of this is Sam Bailey -- just type 'sam bailey odysee' into your search engine.
Background: Sam and her husband, Mark, are both medical doctors, but became suspicious of the pharma model. Mark explicitly stopped practicing. Sam was 'let go' when she was too open about not vaccinating her children.
In the last 4-5 years they have done constant and extensive literature searches to see the foundations of 'virology'... and it's everywhere lacking. Sam has beautiful videos that answer the usual questions -- what about polio, rabies, measles, smallpox etc.
If you prefer reading, then the book "Dissolving Illusions" by Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianik is magnificent. The book presents what I call 'the most important graph in the world' which, using freely available public health data, demonstrates that all 'communicable' diseases had largely vanished before vaccination.
And if you want a real trip, Peter Duesberg's 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' is shocking... He outlines how many normal diseases, like Pellagra, were initially thought to be infectious. And, of course, he demolishes the HIV myth. Both books are 'available' on 'z-library.se'.
Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.
How do you know they did the experiment correctly? How do you know they had proper controls? What peer review process was this subjected to? Did the peer review reach the same conclusion after replicating the experiment?
But okay.... Let's just POSTULATE that experiment is totally correct, and the conclusion perfectly describes reality.
Does that prove that covid, modern influenza strains, HIV, and genital herpes can't be spread from person to person?
Are we really gonna sit here and pretend like every single one of us has not first hand witnessed a cold spread from one sick person to an entire office, school, or home?
See this is a very common trick in sophistry where a very narrow and specific "fact" is taken and extrapolated to a much higher general level that it doesn't really apply to.
"One particular experiment 120 years ago failed to demonstrate that spanish flu was contagious, therefore that proves that nothing is contagious."
Let me give you some advice. Don't even worry about viruses... Don't worry about the holohoax, or the shape of the earth, or ancient aliens, or ANY OTHER THEORY you can imagine.
Instead you need to go back to square one and study basic epistemology. The process by which knowledge is ascertained and demonstrated. Probably the most important philosophical concepts any person could learn.
Until you figure that out (and it's clear you haven't) you're wasting your time on EVERYTHING because you don't understand the basic principles of knowledge.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen? No. Like your flu, The illness is caused by a variety of factors, none of which solely require a fixtional boogeyman. There are environmental factors at play here. Those are the real causes of disease.
Eat shitty food? get sick
Ammonium-based ice-melt sprayed in the roads? Get sick
Too much stress? Get sick
Too much fear? Get sick
Astrological influences happening that you are not sympathetic to? Get sick
Electrical interference with your bodies’ processes? Get sick.
Get a wound and bacteria (actually real) get in? Get sick.
“Viruses” are just a manufactured boogeyman to try and materialize environmental forces that actually cause our diseases.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen?
Did they undergo a rigorous controlled experiment to verify they were actually completely and totally isolated during this time with zero exposure to any other human being?
Or did they just stay home, order uber eats, shop on amazon, and cash government checks at drive-through atms?
Nobody was totally isolated.... Give me a fucking break.
This postulate proves nothing and not evidence of anything. This postulate should be checked against reality. If every time somebody get a virus and become ill with that disease, than postulate is correct. If somebody have virus but doesn't get ill, then postulate is wrong and whole theory based on that postulate should be discarded.
Which by the way is exactly what happened with Koch's postulates, where he abandoned #1 after the discovery of asymptomatic carriers, thus invalidating every single other postulate that comes after that, because they all rely on the validity of the first one.
This person responded by telling me "Koch was studying bacteria, it doesn't apply to viruses!"
Okay so then why the fuck is he using it as evidence there are no viruses?! No answer of course. Just moved the goal posts again and told me nobody could prove spanish flu was contagious.
Still waiting for him to present anything more recent than 100+ years old, which of course I know won't happen.
There are no any "asymptomatic carriers". There are people who does not get illness having presumable pathogen. This means only one thing - pathogen is not the cause of disease,
You know - the question of casuality and all that scientific stuff.
If you heat some object, then thermal IR radiation of object is shifted to shorter waves. Always. Without a single exception. If there a single exception will be found, then, known theories will be changed.
That is how science work. What you are talking about is not a science. When you could not calculate outcome of infection - it is not a science, it is complete bullshit, that will never acquire any respect from any sane person.
thus invalidating every single other postulate
It does not. It just proves that illness where could be "asymptomatic carriers" is not caused by presumed pathogen, and that's all.
Koch postulates are for determining if pathogen could be a cause of disease or not. If even a single person have pathogen, but have no disease, then this pathogen is definitely not a cause of disease. So, medics should do a real scientific research and find what really make other people ill with that disease. But they just yell about all that viruses, bacterias, sugar, fungis, microplastics, climate change, cofee and other stuff, instead of doing their job.
Modern medicine is not a science. It is some mix of cult, conspiracy and religion, where is no place for normal scientific process with theories spoken in math, replicateable experiments that prove or disprove theories, with predictions that always correspond to reality, knowledge of what to do to get guaranteed result and all that real science stuff.
Medics are sect of worst servicemans on the Earth who don't know how what they try to repair works. You will never pay any money to the plumber who don't know what pipes and whater is, or electrician who don't know what electric current is. And of course you will not give a single fuck to what they will tell you. But somehow you still believe medics, who are much worse than that aforementioned ignorant plumber and electrician, because they don't even think about holding any responsibility for their ignorance.
Medics are swindlers who have enormous self-importance along with total irresponsiblity for the results of their activity.
If they really want become scientists, they could begin with something simple - say do a real scientific research and find a way to cure (not treat) a paper-cut in one day, instead of a week. And be ready to return money and pay compensations if it will be more than one day. Then, may be, they will have a chance to get some respect.
There are people who does not get illness having presumable pathogen
Except they are "carriers" because they still have the ability to transmit the disease to other people despite not having symptoms of said disease.
It does not. It just proves that illness where could be "asymptomatic carriers" is not caused by presumed pathogen, and that's all.
It most certainly does invalidate all the postulates because it ends with the assumption that reinfection will cause disease in a healthy animal, which is not the case with asymptomatic carriers.
And it begins with the assumption that there are no pathogens to culture from a healthy animal.
So really you could just eliminate all the postulates and replace them with one single postulate.... "Healthy animals do not contain pathogens".
It most certainly does invalidate all the postulates because it ends with the assumption that reinfection will cause disease in a healthy animal, which is not the case with asymptomatic carriers.
Or somebody just mistaken with pathogen.
If "asymptomatic carrier" does not get disease, then, there is obviously a reason for that. Just like there is a reason why others get disease.
Do you understand that a peson who didn't get disease after interaction with some substance is a normal healthy person, not others, who get a disease and probably have something wrong in their bodies.
Do you know that there are tons of bacterias, viruses, substances that does not cause any disease in anybody? And there are more of them than pathogenic ones. It is absolutely normal to not become ill because of some virus or bacteria. This is normal, not getting ill. Looks like it is something that was hidden from you by medical swindlers who feed from ilnesses.
And please, show me a single example from any natural science where exist anything similar to that insane concept of "asymptomatic carreer". When from 100 identical experiments 90 give one result, but 10 give completely opposite one, because of "aSyMpTomAtic cArRier" and it is accounted as something acceptable.
Postulates are not evidence.
Evidence is a contradiction or correspondence with postulates.
F.e. there is theory with postulate that some viruse cause some disease.
This postulate proves nothing and not evidence of anything. This postulate should be checked against reality. If every time somebody get a virus and become ill with that disease, than postulate is correct. If somebody have virus but doesn't get ill, then postulate is wrong and whole theory based on that postulate should be discarded.
Moreover, Koch's postulates is not about existence or non-existence of anything. They are about if some pathogen really a cause of some illness or not. Really any pathogen - poison, bacteria, virus, physical impact, whatever.
Viruses are pretty real, their existence was proven since tobacco mosaic virus study. In that study, every single time when isolated pathogen was introduced into the plant, plant always become ill.
However, today nobody even bother to prove connection between specific virus and specific illness arbitrary attributed to it. There are no any single scientific proof that influenza virus is a cause of flu or HIV is a cause of AIDS. Not a single one. Not even talking about coronahoax, where even existence of SARS-CoV-2 was never proven.
Medicine, instead of becoming hardcore natural science, with hard proofs and mathematically correct theories, like physics, chemistry and like, turned into complete anti-scientific bullshit at the level of astrology or sociology. There are tons of reasons for that turn, and all of them are malicious.
Crazy: The tobacco mosaic virus study is also quite fraudulent. The 'isolated pathogen' was introduced via needles or rubbing etc, neither of which are things that would happen in nature.
It's a bit like when they inject a 'virus' into the brain of a mouse and say -- look, bad things happened!
Does not matter. Cause and effect connection was established. Scratching or rubbing without pathogen does not cause illness. At the time people knew about control experiments and all that stuff.
Now they just do some random and senseless shit, they don't care about anything except money.
Crazy: to your first point... no... When they put healthy plants beside an 'infected' plant, and let the 'virus' propagate via natural means... the healthy plants did not get sick.
The whole discipline is more intellectually bankrupt than I would have thought possible.
That was not about ways of transmission. That was about unknown pathogen that could not be seen with microscope and pass finest filters they have at the time.
There could be tons of hypothesis about ways of transmission, from rain with wind to insects or animals that obviously was not studied in that research.
That's not the reason to deny any respect for those who tried to bring some science into that discipline.
Throwing out babies with the water is not a good way to change things. Medicine could and should become real science, but mocking over past attempts to do that does not help. Imagine if modern medics, on suspicion of some new pathogen, do the same things as Ivanovsky did with tobacco mosaic disease - could all that swine flu hoax, corona hoax and all other shit be possible at all?
Dude did everything he could at the time as real scientist. He did pretty logical and scientific experiments. But instead of making him an example for discipline, you just making things easier for modern swindlers.
The methodology of the study wasn't designed to test transmission methods. They needed a 100% transmission rate because the experiment was testing if a substance caused a disease. Can't test effect without limiting variables, transmission rate being a major factor to CONTROL, not TEST.
There's a good doc on this that I forgot to save. Do you have any good links to check out? Germ vs terrain theory, viruses and disease?
It was like 7hrs long. I can't find it now.
Nose: Honestly, the best source on all of this is Sam Bailey -- just type 'sam bailey odysee' into your search engine.
Background: Sam and her husband, Mark, are both medical doctors, but became suspicious of the pharma model. Mark explicitly stopped practicing. Sam was 'let go' when she was too open about not vaccinating her children.
In the last 4-5 years they have done constant and extensive literature searches to see the foundations of 'virology'... and it's everywhere lacking. Sam has beautiful videos that answer the usual questions -- what about polio, rabies, measles, smallpox etc.
If you prefer reading, then the book "Dissolving Illusions" by Susanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianik is magnificent. The book presents what I call 'the most important graph in the world' which, using freely available public health data, demonstrates that all 'communicable' diseases had largely vanished before vaccination.
And if you want a real trip, Peter Duesberg's 'Inventing the AIDS Virus' is shocking... He outlines how many normal diseases, like Pellagra, were initially thought to be infectious. And, of course, he demolishes the HIV myth. Both books are 'available' on 'z-library.se'.
Thanks so much for the info.
I'm going to look into all you've posted. What is the simple response to why people think they "catch a cold" when someone in school is sick?
Okay, but we've all caught the flu, a cold, or covid from other people without having needles stuck into our brains right?
Have you? There is the famous 'rosenau' experiment from the 1910's/20's (I forget which) that demonstrated that the Spanish Flu, the most transmissible/deadly disease of the modern age... couldn't be transmitted from person to person in controlled experiments.
How do you know they did the experiment correctly? How do you know they had proper controls? What peer review process was this subjected to? Did the peer review reach the same conclusion after replicating the experiment?
But okay.... Let's just POSTULATE that experiment is totally correct, and the conclusion perfectly describes reality.
Does that prove that covid, modern influenza strains, HIV, and genital herpes can't be spread from person to person?
Are we really gonna sit here and pretend like every single one of us has not first hand witnessed a cold spread from one sick person to an entire office, school, or home?
See this is a very common trick in sophistry where a very narrow and specific "fact" is taken and extrapolated to a much higher general level that it doesn't really apply to.
"One particular experiment 120 years ago failed to demonstrate that spanish flu was contagious, therefore that proves that nothing is contagious."
Let me give you some advice. Don't even worry about viruses... Don't worry about the holohoax, or the shape of the earth, or ancient aliens, or ANY OTHER THEORY you can imagine.
Instead you need to go back to square one and study basic epistemology. The process by which knowledge is ascertained and demonstrated. Probably the most important philosophical concepts any person could learn.
Until you figure that out (and it's clear you haven't) you're wasting your time on EVERYTHING because you don't understand the basic principles of knowledge.
People in total isolation got “covid” despite not interacting with anybody for months. Did they magically spontaneously generate the pathogen? No. Like your flu, The illness is caused by a variety of factors, none of which solely require a fixtional boogeyman. There are environmental factors at play here. Those are the real causes of disease.
Eat shitty food? get sick
Ammonium-based ice-melt sprayed in the roads? Get sick
Too much stress? Get sick
Too much fear? Get sick
Astrological influences happening that you are not sympathetic to? Get sick
Electrical interference with your bodies’ processes? Get sick.
Get a wound and bacteria (actually real) get in? Get sick.
“Viruses” are just a manufactured boogeyman to try and materialize environmental forces that actually cause our diseases.
Filled: I don't know if you've looked into the curious case of Polio... if you do, you'll see it's even more cynical/evil than you've outlined.
Did they undergo a rigorous controlled experiment to verify they were actually completely and totally isolated during this time with zero exposure to any other human being?
Or did they just stay home, order uber eats, shop on amazon, and cash government checks at drive-through atms?
Nobody was totally isolated.... Give me a fucking break.
Which by the way is exactly what happened with Koch's postulates, where he abandoned #1 after the discovery of asymptomatic carriers, thus invalidating every single other postulate that comes after that, because they all rely on the validity of the first one.
This person responded by telling me "Koch was studying bacteria, it doesn't apply to viruses!"
Okay so then why the fuck is he using it as evidence there are no viruses?! No answer of course. Just moved the goal posts again and told me nobody could prove spanish flu was contagious.
Still waiting for him to present anything more recent than 100+ years old, which of course I know won't happen.
The sophistry is unreal.
There are no any "asymptomatic carriers". There are people who does not get illness having presumable pathogen. This means only one thing - pathogen is not the cause of disease,
You know - the question of casuality and all that scientific stuff.
If you heat some object, then thermal IR radiation of object is shifted to shorter waves. Always. Without a single exception. If there a single exception will be found, then, known theories will be changed.
That is how science work. What you are talking about is not a science. When you could not calculate outcome of infection - it is not a science, it is complete bullshit, that will never acquire any respect from any sane person.
It does not. It just proves that illness where could be "asymptomatic carriers" is not caused by presumed pathogen, and that's all.
Koch postulates are for determining if pathogen could be a cause of disease or not. If even a single person have pathogen, but have no disease, then this pathogen is definitely not a cause of disease. So, medics should do a real scientific research and find what really make other people ill with that disease. But they just yell about all that viruses, bacterias, sugar, fungis, microplastics, climate change, cofee and other stuff, instead of doing their job.
Modern medicine is not a science. It is some mix of cult, conspiracy and religion, where is no place for normal scientific process with theories spoken in math, replicateable experiments that prove or disprove theories, with predictions that always correspond to reality, knowledge of what to do to get guaranteed result and all that real science stuff.
Medics are sect of worst servicemans on the Earth who don't know how what they try to repair works. You will never pay any money to the plumber who don't know what pipes and whater is, or electrician who don't know what electric current is. And of course you will not give a single fuck to what they will tell you. But somehow you still believe medics, who are much worse than that aforementioned ignorant plumber and electrician, because they don't even think about holding any responsibility for their ignorance.
Medics are swindlers who have enormous self-importance along with total irresponsiblity for the results of their activity.
If they really want become scientists, they could begin with something simple - say do a real scientific research and find a way to cure (not treat) a paper-cut in one day, instead of a week. And be ready to return money and pay compensations if it will be more than one day. Then, may be, they will have a chance to get some respect.
Except they are "carriers" because they still have the ability to transmit the disease to other people despite not having symptoms of said disease.
It most certainly does invalidate all the postulates because it ends with the assumption that reinfection will cause disease in a healthy animal, which is not the case with asymptomatic carriers.
And it begins with the assumption that there are no pathogens to culture from a healthy animal.
So really you could just eliminate all the postulates and replace them with one single postulate.... "Healthy animals do not contain pathogens".
There ya go.... All of them boiled down to 1.
Or somebody just mistaken with pathogen.
If "asymptomatic carrier" does not get disease, then, there is obviously a reason for that. Just like there is a reason why others get disease.
Do you understand that a peson who didn't get disease after interaction with some substance is a normal healthy person, not others, who get a disease and probably have something wrong in their bodies.
Do you know that there are tons of bacterias, viruses, substances that does not cause any disease in anybody? And there are more of them than pathogenic ones. It is absolutely normal to not become ill because of some virus or bacteria. This is normal, not getting ill. Looks like it is something that was hidden from you by medical swindlers who feed from ilnesses.
And please, show me a single example from any natural science where exist anything similar to that insane concept of "asymptomatic carreer". When from 100 identical experiments 90 give one result, but 10 give completely opposite one, because of "aSyMpTomAtic cArRier" and it is accounted as something acceptable.