As someone who has done thousands of experiments on bacteria, I believe your statement is disinformation (probably not intentionally). If you have evidence to support this assertion I welcome it.
Quite intentional. Can you provide a link to a scientific study that demonstrates the transmission of "disease" via bacteria in otherwise healthy individuals?
Respectfully, I turn your request around as the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I've looked at hundreds of claims. None I've found pass the sniff test. Just a week ago, somebody sent me a Johns Hopkins study claiming to have infected 100 guinea pigs with tuberculosis over a 4 year period. It wasn't even worth commenting on. Mainstream media isn't even in the vicinity of explaining the cause of tuberculosis. Notwithstanding, "TB" is not a "contagious disease" to begin with. As part of the continued mainstream medical obfuscation agenda, what they called TB 100 years ago, they now call "Lung Cancer".
Anyway, I'm all ears (eyes). Let's see what you got. I welcome it. Double-blind is ideal, having a control group will suffice for starters. And of course, successfully repeated by other parties is a must.
Respectfully, I turn your request around as the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.
This is never, ever, ever true. This is, in my experience, always a stance taken by those who have weak evidence and do not wish to dig further to justify their belief. The reality is, burden of providing evidence is always on any person making any statement whatsoever. You made a statement that "There's no such thing as contagious germs." You provided no evidence to support it.
I said "[I've] done thousands of experiments on bacteria." That is not proof. Even if I provided you with all my knowledge and all my experimental logs, that is also not proof, though it would be evidence. Proof is a decision. It has nothing to do with anything objective. Evidence is objective (at least potentially).
Nevertheless, I am not sure what type of evidence you desire. I can explain in great, painstaking detail how viruses and bacteria are transmitted (they are literally everywhere, I have done those experiments myself, but there are probably millions of papers on such experiments). I can explain in great painstaking detail the BIOLOGY of why, because I have years of direct experience and learning on the subject matter, and there are, again, millions of papers on the subject. Throw a stone and you'll hit one.
This shows clearly the transmission of M. tuberculosis via consumption (because that was the test parameter) and it causing the symptoms associated with Tuberculosis.
I appreciate you sharing the paper. I can demonstrate numerous flaws, not the least of which is the prevailing assumption of mainstream medicine, germ theory, which is still just a "theory" to this very day. Now why is that? Shouldn't it be "germ law" or "germ fact" by now? Right?
After all, it's been 140+ years. Why don't we ever hear doctors, scientists, media experts, etc. reminding us that they're pretty sure germs cause disease, but not yet 100% sure?
Where's the disconnect? Why haven't our authoritative experts upgraded "germ theory" to "germ fact" yet? What are they waiting for? I mean rabies, anthrax, polio, Spanish flu, small pox, measles, etc, right? And surely AIDS/HIV seals the deal, right? "The science is settled", right? We have total consensus, yes? Nobody in their right mind would question any of those, yes? Like a long, long time ago - 70, 80, 90, 100 years ago, the evidence was all in, right?
Why is it still a theory then? Does it fall into the same category as evolution, or the big bang (pretty much unprovable - obviously)?
I'd very much like to hear your explanations if you'd like to share, preferably on a bacteria (disease) you have considerable experience with. That being said, I've come to realize that simple is always correct. If you can't explain it to someone with a high school education, there's something wrong with the explanation. Technical jargon and lengthy word-salad was specifically designed to deceive. An explanation can always be simplified for a neophyte if it's right. However, I'm familiar with most medical research jargon.
So before we go any further, I'd like to ask you two questions;
Do you currently earn a living working in the mainstream medical arena in the capacity you're suggesting expertise in (i.e. medicine, scientific research, university, lab, etc.) or are you retired?
How would your life be impacted if you found out you were mistaken about "contagion"? Earth-shattering? Life-altering on a grand scale? Or no big thing?
PSA: There's no such thing as contagious germs. :)
As someone who has done thousands of experiments on bacteria, I believe your statement is disinformation (probably not intentionally). If you have evidence to support this assertion I welcome it.
Quite intentional. Can you provide a link to a scientific study that demonstrates the transmission of "disease" via bacteria in otherwise healthy individuals?
Respectfully, I turn your request around as the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I've looked at hundreds of claims. None I've found pass the sniff test. Just a week ago, somebody sent me a Johns Hopkins study claiming to have infected 100 guinea pigs with tuberculosis over a 4 year period. It wasn't even worth commenting on. Mainstream media isn't even in the vicinity of explaining the cause of tuberculosis. Notwithstanding, "TB" is not a "contagious disease" to begin with. As part of the continued mainstream medical obfuscation agenda, what they called TB 100 years ago, they now call "Lung Cancer".
Anyway, I'm all ears (eyes). Let's see what you got. I welcome it. Double-blind is ideal, having a control group will suffice for starters. And of course, successfully repeated by other parties is a must.
This is never, ever, ever true. This is, in my experience, always a stance taken by those who have weak evidence and do not wish to dig further to justify their belief. The reality is, burden of providing evidence is always on any person making any statement whatsoever. You made a statement that "There's no such thing as contagious germs." You provided no evidence to support it.
I said "[I've] done thousands of experiments on bacteria." That is not proof. Even if I provided you with all my knowledge and all my experimental logs, that is also not proof, though it would be evidence. Proof is a decision. It has nothing to do with anything objective. Evidence is objective (at least potentially).
Nevertheless, I am not sure what type of evidence you desire. I can explain in great, painstaking detail how viruses and bacteria are transmitted (they are literally everywhere, I have done those experiments myself, but there are probably millions of papers on such experiments). I can explain in great painstaking detail the BIOLOGY of why, because I have years of direct experience and learning on the subject matter, and there are, again, millions of papers on the subject. Throw a stone and you'll hit one.
Better yet, I'll throw a stone and hit one.
This shows clearly the transmission of M. tuberculosis via consumption (because that was the test parameter) and it causing the symptoms associated with Tuberculosis.
I appreciate you sharing the paper. I can demonstrate numerous flaws, not the least of which is the prevailing assumption of mainstream medicine, germ theory, which is still just a "theory" to this very day. Now why is that? Shouldn't it be "germ law" or "germ fact" by now? Right?
After all, it's been 140+ years. Why don't we ever hear doctors, scientists, media experts, etc. reminding us that they're pretty sure germs cause disease, but not yet 100% sure?
Where's the disconnect? Why haven't our authoritative experts upgraded "germ theory" to "germ fact" yet? What are they waiting for? I mean rabies, anthrax, polio, Spanish flu, small pox, measles, etc, right? And surely AIDS/HIV seals the deal, right? "The science is settled", right? We have total consensus, yes? Nobody in their right mind would question any of those, yes? Like a long, long time ago - 70, 80, 90, 100 years ago, the evidence was all in, right?
Why is it still a theory then? Does it fall into the same category as evolution, or the big bang (pretty much unprovable - obviously)?
I'd very much like to hear your explanations if you'd like to share, preferably on a bacteria (disease) you have considerable experience with. That being said, I've come to realize that simple is always correct. If you can't explain it to someone with a high school education, there's something wrong with the explanation. Technical jargon and lengthy word-salad was specifically designed to deceive. An explanation can always be simplified for a neophyte if it's right. However, I'm familiar with most medical research jargon.
So before we go any further, I'd like to ask you two questions;
Do you currently earn a living working in the mainstream medical arena in the capacity you're suggesting expertise in (i.e. medicine, scientific research, university, lab, etc.) or are you retired?
How would your life be impacted if you found out you were mistaken about "contagion"? Earth-shattering? Life-altering on a grand scale? Or no big thing?