I'm currently having a debate on another thread where someone has been saying viruses aren't real and citing "Koch's Postulates" as evidence.
I made this graphic to demonstrate why it's silly to present "postulates" as evidence, and posting it to this sub because A.) It's the relevant community to the debate I'm having. and B.) I needed the image to be linkable.
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.
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.
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.
I'm currently having a debate on another thread where someone has been saying viruses aren't real and citing "Koch's Postulates" as evidence.
I made this graphic to demonstrate why it's silly to present "postulates" as evidence, and posting it to this sub because A.) It's the relevant community to the debate I'm having. and B.) I needed the image to be linkable.
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.
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'.
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.
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.