That being said, the survival rate of 99.997% overall and with the vast majority of deaths being with multiple Co-morbidities and average age of death being 78 (average life expectancy) keeps me skeptical that it even exists.
I tell people that I believe it’s real, but vastly over sensationalized. Now I have to change my tune it would seem.
They think they’ve debunked the Koch’s postulates thing so in case it comes up, here’s River’s postulates (which supposedly are more useful and current:
Not possible. The underlying premises of Kochs' Postulates cannot be questioned.
If you want to PROVE that a pathogen causes harm to humans, you MUST:
Find a group of humans who all exhibit similar health problems
Extract blood sample from them
Also extract blood from a sample of humans that do not exhibit these health problems
Determine if there is something in the blood that is common to the sick people but not to the healthy people
Isolate and purify that thing
Take that isolated and purified thing and inject it into some living organism (humans would be ideal, but probably not ethical, so it is injected into rats, mice, etc.) and find out if this thing makes those subjects sick
If yes, this tells you that this thing makes the subjects sick
Ideally, take it one step further and extract, isolate, and purify this thing in the test subjects, and then inject it into a second set of test subjects
If they also get sick, you can affirmatively state that this is a pathogen that makes living organisms (i.e. humans) sick. You can state that it was found in the blood of the sick people, and THIS is what made them sick.
There is NO other method of determining if a possible pathogen is in fact something harmful.
This has NEVER been done with Covid-19/SARS-Cov-2.
I’m in agreement with you. None of this passes muster. I just meant “they” in the Reddit hive mind sense. If they think it’s been debunked, you have to come up with another vector of getting the point across. Kind of like how we all know that both parties are the same (in the Uniparty sense) but if you say that to someone on social media, they get triggered and comeback with the predictable “both parties are not the same” + copypasta. I would expect Koch’s postulates to turn on the lightbulb for more people but sadly that just isn’t the case.
Tell them they will have to prove Koch's Postulates are irrelvant, and they have to have a better method of identifying if something is harmful. They can't, because it perfectly explains how to identify something that is harmful.
I would expect Koch’s postulates to turn on the lightbulb for more people but sadly that just isn’t the case.
Right. Though I am assuming they actually KNOW what KP's are, but in reality they likely don't. They probably read an unsubstantiated claim that "it was debunked" and they just regurgitate without even know what it even means.
Did you ask them if they even know what Koch's Postulates are?
If so, WHICH STEP in the process do they think is not valid?
That’s how I took it too. It’s a well cited book by an expert in her field and that’s the thesis of the book - that we’ve been totally misled about the true nature of viruses and germs. Almost nothing ever passes any form of these postulates and thus we need to rethink things like germ theory. She contends that illness comes from mineral deficiencies and the break down of our own cells en masse, not from dirty toilet seats. The Contagion Myth is the book.
How would she explain the phenomenon of natural immunity to some viruses? Once you catch it, you don't catch it again. And it's only for some diseases. Nutrient deficiency seems to not fit the bill in those cases. But colds and flus, yes I think those do fit under the nutrient deficiency explanation.
Eh, I'm not all that jazzed seeing so many people ready to deny germ theory. I would think people would be smart enough to recognize quacks when they see one. If some medical professional, usually osteopaths and chiropractors, were saying most disease was caused by mineral/vitamin deficiency, and then personally were selling "miracle cure vitamin and mineral supplements" and "magic water" to cure those diseases, it points to sheer quackery.
I’m only about a third of the way through it so not sure I can answer the question. Author’s name is Sally Fallon but at the moment, I’m having a hard time finding a link to the full pdf. Here’s a link to a summary I found though: link
The writer is correct, and the point should be made even more clear.
They are using the word "isolate" out of context.
They are using it to mean that a sample of SOMETHING was taken from one particular individual, and is therefore "isolated" from any other individuals' SOMETHING.
That is NOT what "isolate and purify" means in the scientific, Koch's Postulates sense.
To "isolate and purify" means to isolate A PARTICULAR MOLECULE OF A PARTICULAR THING out of the SOMETHING that was taken in the sample.
You could take a blood draw from someone, and that blood sample might have hundreds of things in it. Out of all those things ("SOMETHING") you need to ISOLATE THAT ONE PARTICULAR THING that you think should be studied (such as a SARS virus, COVID whatever, etc.
You then purify to make sure there is NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN that one particular thing. Only then, can you say the substance has been "isolated and purified."
They have NEVER done this with Covid-19 or SARS-Cov-2 (or HIV, for that matter).
Which means ... they are blowing smoke up your backside when they claim they "isolated" it from a particular patient.
I thought this was interesting also:
The first study of someone's post-vaccination death.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8051011/
"Since he did not present with any clinical signs of COVID-19, isolation in a specific setting did not occur."
So even from someone who died after being vaccinated that shows the spike protein all through their body, they still can't "isolate covid-19".
Probably because the "vaccine" has nothing whatsoever to do with Covid-19.
It's like watching lemmings, the blithe disconnect between the deadly danger of covid and the lack of any evidence for its existence.
This is an open dirty secret among virologists: "May I present the isolated (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) SARS-Cov-2 virus."
But hey, who needs a real gene sequence in order to derive a PCR test, or develop a vaccine?
I am not a medical expert. I’m a simple anon.
That being said, the survival rate of 99.997% overall and with the vast majority of deaths being with multiple Co-morbidities and average age of death being 78 (average life expectancy) keeps me skeptical that it even exists.
I tell people that I believe it’s real, but vastly over sensationalized. Now I have to change my tune it would seem.
Exactly. There isn't actually any evidence that it even exists. Maybe it does, but there isn't any EVIDENCE that it does.
That's a wee bit of a problemo.
They think they’ve debunked the Koch’s postulates thing so in case it comes up, here’s River’s postulates (which supposedly are more useful and current:
book quote
This is from a book called The Contagion Myth.
Not possible. The underlying premises of Kochs' Postulates cannot be questioned.
If you want to PROVE that a pathogen causes harm to humans, you MUST:
There is NO other method of determining if a possible pathogen is in fact something harmful.
This has NEVER been done with Covid-19/SARS-Cov-2.
And it never will be, because it is a scam.
I’m in agreement with you. None of this passes muster. I just meant “they” in the Reddit hive mind sense. If they think it’s been debunked, you have to come up with another vector of getting the point across. Kind of like how we all know that both parties are the same (in the Uniparty sense) but if you say that to someone on social media, they get triggered and comeback with the predictable “both parties are not the same” + copypasta. I would expect Koch’s postulates to turn on the lightbulb for more people but sadly that just isn’t the case.
"It was debunked" is just a claim.
"No it wasn't" is a claim that is just as valid.
Tell them they will have to prove Koch's Postulates are irrelvant, and they have to have a better method of identifying if something is harmful. They can't, because it perfectly explains how to identify something that is harmful.
Right. Though I am assuming they actually KNOW what KP's are, but in reality they likely don't. They probably read an unsubstantiated claim that "it was debunked" and they just regurgitate without even know what it even means.
Did you ask them if they even know what Koch's Postulates are?
If so, WHICH STEP in the process do they think is not valid?
I doubt they have any real answers.
Am I interpreting that except correctly to mean that no virus has ever been proven by River's Postulates to cause a specific disease?
That’s how I took it too. It’s a well cited book by an expert in her field and that’s the thesis of the book - that we’ve been totally misled about the true nature of viruses and germs. Almost nothing ever passes any form of these postulates and thus we need to rethink things like germ theory. She contends that illness comes from mineral deficiencies and the break down of our own cells en masse, not from dirty toilet seats. The Contagion Myth is the book.
How would she explain the phenomenon of natural immunity to some viruses? Once you catch it, you don't catch it again. And it's only for some diseases. Nutrient deficiency seems to not fit the bill in those cases. But colds and flus, yes I think those do fit under the nutrient deficiency explanation.
Eh, I'm not all that jazzed seeing so many people ready to deny germ theory. I would think people would be smart enough to recognize quacks when they see one. If some medical professional, usually osteopaths and chiropractors, were saying most disease was caused by mineral/vitamin deficiency, and then personally were selling "miracle cure vitamin and mineral supplements" and "magic water" to cure those diseases, it points to sheer quackery.
OK. But selling vaccines, not that different, tho.
Are doctors all making and selling their own version of vaccines and telling people that THEIR version was the only one that would cure them?
I’m only about a third of the way through it so not sure I can answer the question. Author’s name is Sally Fallon but at the moment, I’m having a hard time finding a link to the full pdf. Here’s a link to a summary I found though: link
The writer is correct, and the point should be made even more clear.
They are using the word "isolate" out of context.
They are using it to mean that a sample of SOMETHING was taken from one particular individual, and is therefore "isolated" from any other individuals' SOMETHING.
That is NOT what "isolate and purify" means in the scientific, Koch's Postulates sense.
To "isolate and purify" means to isolate A PARTICULAR MOLECULE OF A PARTICULAR THING out of the SOMETHING that was taken in the sample.
You could take a blood draw from someone, and that blood sample might have hundreds of things in it. Out of all those things ("SOMETHING") you need to ISOLATE THAT ONE PARTICULAR THING that you think should be studied (such as a SARS virus, COVID whatever, etc.
You then purify to make sure there is NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN that one particular thing. Only then, can you say the substance has been "isolated and purified."
They have NEVER done this with Covid-19 or SARS-Cov-2 (or HIV, for that matter).
Which means ... they are blowing smoke up your backside when they claim they "isolated" it from a particular patient.
THAT means nothing at all.