Edited reply:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Koch%27s_Postulates.svg
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
It's just a graphic showing that he ASSUMES there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1, and also invalidating #3 in the process as well.
The hypothesis is that the suspected pathogen can be cultured and then inoculated on a healthy animal which will lead to the same pathology which according to him proves causation.
So let me get this straight.... Koch's postulates are not intended to prove or disprove the existence of viruses?
You're telling me they are actually testing whether or not said virus can reproduce and re-infect people in highly specific artificial conditions, after being removed from all living cells?
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it's not even testing?
And lastly, What do you have to say about the fact that Koch himself abandoned postulate #1 and postulate #3 in his own lifetime, as new information became available to him?
Edited reply:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Koch%27s_Postulates.svg
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
It's just a graphic showing that he ASSUMES there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1, and also invalidating #3 in the process as well.
The hypothesis is that the suspected pathogen can be cultured and then inoculated on a healthy animal which will lead to the same pathology which according to him proves causation.
So let me get this straight.... Koch's postulates are not intended to prove or disprove the existence of viruses?
You're telling me they are actually testing whether or not said virus can reproduce and re-infect people in highly specific artificial conditions?
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it's not even testing?
And lastly, What do you have to say about the fact that Koch himself abandoned postulate #1 and postulate #3 in his own lifetime, as new information became available to him?
Edited reply:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Koch%27s_Postulates.svg
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
It's just a graphic showing that he ASSUMES there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1.
The hypothesis is that the suspected pathogen can be cultured and then inoculated on a healthy animal which will lead to the same pathology which according to him proves causation.
So let me get this straight.... Koch's postulates are not intended to prove or disprove the existence of viruses?
You're telling me they are actually testing whether or not said virus can reproduce and re-infect people in highly specific artificial conditions?
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it's not even testing?
And lastly, What do you have to say about the fact that Koch himself abandoned postulate #1 and postulate #3 in his own lifetime, as new information became available to him?
Edited reply:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Koch%27s_Postulates.svg
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
It's just a graphic showing that he assumes there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1.
The hypothesis is that the suspected pathogen can be cultured and then inoculated on a healthy animal which will lead to the same pathology which according to him proves causation.
So let me get this straight.... Koch's postulates are not intended to prove or disprove the existence of viruses?
You're telling me they are actually testing whether or not said virus can reproduce and re-infect people in highly specific artificial conditions?
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it's not even testing?
And lastly, What do you have to say about the fact that Koch himself abandoned postulate #1 and postulate #3 in his own lifetime, as new information became available to him?
Edited reply:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Koch%27s_Postulates.svg
That 2nd mouse is not a control because the experiment is not performed on it, and therefore it doesn't provide any results to measure against the other group.
It's just a graphic showing that he assumes there is no virus present in a healthy animal, which is he himself realized wasn't true, causing him to abandon postulate #1.
The hypothesis is that the suspected pathogen can be cultured and then inoculated on a healthy animal which will lead to the same pathology which according to him proves causation.
So let me get this straight.... Koch's postulates are not intended to prove or disprove the existence of viruses?
You're telling me they are actually testing whether or not said virus can reproduce and re-infect people in highly specific artificial conditions?
So then.... Why are you trying to use it as evidence for a completely different claim that it doesn't even attempt to test?
And lastly, What do you have to say about the fact that Koch himself abandoned postulate #1 and postulate #3 in his own lifetime, as new information became available to him?