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.
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.
For sure.... Nobody that I'm aware of is downplaying the importance of many other factors that go into determining your health.
But the fact still remains the asymptomatic carrier can pass the disease to other people, despite not having symptoms themselves.
That proves that whatever causes the disease is still inside their body, even though it's not affecting them the way it does other people.
But my overall point is that this claim that viruses aren't real NECESSARIALY requires that diseases defined as "viral" not be contagious.
If "terrain makes you sick, not viruses", then someone who lives in healthy terrain should be able to inject HIV blood and be totally fine because they are safe from the root cause of the disease....
Why don't virus deniers just prove contagiousness isn't real? They can inject HIV blood, swap cotton swabs with herpes patients, and inhale water droplets from sick people sneezing.
And they should be totally fine provided they keep their terrain healthy, whatever that means.
Should be totally trivial and easy to prove that contagiousness isn't a thing, but yet they don't.
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.
For sure.... Nobody that I'm aware of is downplaying the importance of many other factors that go into determining your health.
But the fact still remains the asymptomatic carrier can pass the disease to other people, despite not having symptoms themselves.
That proves that whatever causes the disease is still inside their body, even though it's not affecting them the way it does other people.
But my overall point is that this claim that viruses aren't real NECESSARIALY requires that diseases defined as "viral" not be contagious.
If "terrain makes you sick, not viruses", then someone who lives in healthy terrain should be able to inject HIV blood and be totally fine because they are safe from the root cause of the disease....
Why don't virus deniers just prove contagiousness isn't real? They can inject HIV blood, swap cotton swabs with herpes patients, and inhale water droplets from sick people sneezing.
And they should be totally fine provided they keep their terrain healthy, whatever that means.
Should be totally trivial and easy to prove that contagiousness isn't a thing, but yet they don't.