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.
Crazy: But... he didn't! Well, okay, he did, and for that he should be lauded. But the experiments that he did, which would have established, almost incontrovertibly, viruses/viral transmission... failed! This is really the issue.
Look: I literally remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 'no virus' hypothesis. I thought it was crazy. And then... it just turns out that no experiments ever have demonstrated viral transmission of disease.
I don't think of Ivanovsky (the tobacco-virus guy) as intellectually bankrupt. It's the people ((())) who ran with his work without verifying basic details who are... well, enemies of humanity.
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.
Crazy: But... he didn't! Well, okay, he did, and for that he should be lauded. But the experiments that he did, which would have established, almost incontrovertibly, viruses/viral transmission... failed! This is really the issue.
Look: I literally remember exactly where I was when I heard about the 'no virus' hypothesis. I thought it was crazy. And then... it just turns out that no experiments ever have demonstrated viral transmission of disease.
I don't think of Ivanovsky (the tobacco-virus guy) as intellectually bankrupt. It's the people ((())) who ran with his work without verifying basic details who are... well, enemies of humanity.