"If it's not Koch's postulates we're using as the set of criteria for proving its existence, then some other sound set of criteria must be used, which has simply not happened."
I see. So you use Koch's principle as a standard because there is no more appropriate standard.
"If something were to exist whose nature made it so that the postulates could not apply to that something's discovery for practical reasons, it doesn't change the fact that the exact same underlying logical principles would need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria."
"not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered."
This is it.
Some have claimed that "SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that meets Koch's principle."
The person cites the following four points as arguments.
I would like to know your views on them.
Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml−1 trypsin before it was added to the cells.
There is a counterargument to this, "It was not taken from the lesion area (inside the alveoli). Is this objection appropriate?
The gene of the virus cultured by cloning and the gene simulated by RNA-seq matched 99.99%.
It just so happened to be a type of coronavirus with a well-established culture method, so we were able to culture it in Vero cells.
"The reliability of RNA-seq for piecing together fragmented RNA is unknown." I understand this because of what you just told me.
What about the reliability of cloning technology?
Is it a technology that can be applied to virus culture in the first place?
NIH researchers inoculated eight of these rhesus monkeys with a cloned novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (nCoV-WA1-2020).
As a result, all monkeys inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 showed respiratory disease equivalent to moderate human respiratory disease between 8 and 16 days after infection.
We also observed prolonged rectal shedding in one monkey, suggesting that rhesus monkeys may reproduce the moderate to severe symptoms observed in SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals.
It has also been proven that the same virus can be re-isolated from the same animal.
Another research group has also demonstrated the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in rhesus monkeys.
There is a counterargument to this, "It doesn't say what the virulence of the virus is. This may mean that the symptoms are not known to be caused by the virus.
"Understand that it is a mockery of scientific reasoning and the logical principles such reasoning is based on. "
Since you seem to be well versed in it, could you explain it to me?
Specifically, points like, "This sentence is wrong in this way. That's the kind of thing I'm open to.
"If it's not Koch's postulates we're using as the set of criteria for proving its existence, then some other sound set of criteria must be used, which has simply not happened."
I see. So you use Koch's principle as a standard because there is no more appropriate standard.
I'll check the link.
"If something were to exist whose nature made it so that the postulates could not apply to that something's discovery for practical reasons, it doesn't change the fact that the exact same underlying logical principles would need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria."
"not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered."
This is it.
Some have claimed that "SARS-CoV-2 is a virus that meets Koch's principle." The person cites the following four points as arguments. I would like to know your views on them.
Cultured cell monolayers were maintained in their respective medium. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and diluted 1:2 with DMEM supplemented with 16 μg ml−1 trypsin before it was added to the cells.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#Sec2
There is a counterargument to this, "It was not taken from the lesion area (inside the alveoli). Is this objection appropriate?
The gene of the virus cultured by cloning and the gene simulated by RNA-seq matched 99.99%. It just so happened to be a type of coronavirus with a well-established culture method, so we were able to culture it in Vero cells.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7/figures/9 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1802633808 https://virological.org/t/preliminary-phylogenetic-analysis-of-11-ncov2019-genomes-2020-01-19/329
"The reliability of RNA-seq for piecing together fragmented RNA is unknown." I understand this because of what you just told me.
What about the reliability of cloning technology? Is it a technology that can be applied to virus culture in the first place?
NIH researchers inoculated eight of these rhesus monkeys with a cloned novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (nCoV-WA1-2020). As a result, all monkeys inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 showed respiratory disease equivalent to moderate human respiratory disease between 8 and 16 days after infection. We also observed prolonged rectal shedding in one monkey, suggesting that rhesus monkeys may reproduce the moderate to severe symptoms observed in SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2324-7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN985325.1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2324-7/figures/3
It has also been proven that the same virus can be re-isolated from the same animal. Another research group has also demonstrated the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in rhesus monkeys.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/818
There is a counterargument to this, "It doesn't say what the virulence of the virus is. This may mean that the symptoms are not known to be caused by the virus.