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?
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.