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.
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.