You keep mentioning "Koch's Postulates" as if it means something or is a modern pertinent example. It is not. Koch himself abandoned them because they were unworkable. It doesn't mean that other theories don't exist and aren't in use.
They're "unworkable" because nobody could demonstrate dis-ease causation worked this way. And many tried, for decades. A rational person with no agenda would quickly come to the only logical conclusion which is -> "microbes do not CAUSE dis-ease". But once your career and reputation are on the line and the medical cabal is backing you and your partners in crime, you've got to pivot somehow. This is all easily explained.
It's al quite simple. If nobody can take bacteria that are said to be the CAUSE of a dis-ease and make healthy people sick with said dis-ease, then the THEORY must be scrapped. And this is precisely what all their scientific results showed. Again and again and again.
The main problem with the postulates is simple.
Yes it is. But you either don't understand just how simple it is, or you're in denial of their simplicity.
You can get an infection without becoming symptomatic.
This statement is a classic example of building a strawman argument, which is required to hide the total failure of satisfying Koch's Postulates.
Now, flip the tables. I'll play the game of "strong immune system" with you, even though no such "system" exists in reality. But let's say this is all true for argument's sake. Now, you must explain why all attempts to demonstrate Koch's Postulates resulted in VIRTUALLY NOBODY getting sick. If 5% of the people in your scientific experiment come down with symptoms, but 95% are "not symptomatic" would you consider this "proof" of your theory? Are we to now conclude that 95% of the people just happen to have a "strong immune system"?
Would any sane and rational scientist stick with this THEORY with only a 5% success rate? Well this is what they've effectively done for over 100 years. It would seem the "sane and rational scientists" must learn to "go along to get along" or else find themselves without a job/career shortly thereafter. Do you think this is a possibility?
It doesn't mean that other theories don't exist and aren't in use.
I don't know what you're implying here. What other THEORY is "in use" in establishment medicine?
I'm referencing a particularly well known example of the type of proof you seek and one that involved self-experimentation by the scientist himself.
You're referencing Barry Marshall I presume. So you're willing to defend the entirety of germ theory based on a sample size of one doctor who had a pre-determined agenda? This is not scientific evidence of any kind, wouldn't you agree? Where are the follow-up experiments? Were his results proven to be accurate with large sample sizes? Did other experimenters replicate his findings?
I can guarantee you that some other researchers tried to replicate his findings. And I can also guarantee you they all failed. And this is why there are no follow-up experiments. Because when they fail, they don't publish and bury their results. Very simple.
Now, what if I told you I could sample 100 random people off the street and perform the same test as Marshall, and perhaps 3-5 would indeed "get sick" just like Marshall did. Would that prove his findings correct or would you stop and consider some other possibilities with such a low success rate?
I'd bet the farm that those 3-5 people were struggling with an anger conflict, a situation in life they "could not stomach" to be precise. Such a conflict could easily be ascribed to Marshall after all his failures to prove his H-pylori theory. He was sure he had it figured out, but all his experiments failed. Next he drinks the bacteria, sure that it's going to work. And bang, he starts to feel bad. This is encouraging to him. He resolves his anger conflict and now his body begins producing the form "H-pylori", right along with the bacteria he drank.
Basically the same holds true for our 3-5 who get sick. They are all dealing with anger conflicts, likely taking anti-biotics to kill their own gut bacteria, but drinking them re-initiates their activity again.
Perhaps there are even another 5 who are actively on anti-biotics at the time, and they have a "minor reaction" to the test.
But the other 90, not currently dealing with any anger conflicts, don't have any reaction at all.
This is a superior explanation that actually makes logical, rational sense. The inferior explanation, by a landslide, is that the other 90% just had a 'strong immune system". Without any proof at all to back it up. You'll find all of mainstream allopathic medicine rests on these unverifiable claims. They can't prove they're right, and thus, we can't disprove what they claim. It's like me asking you to prove that leprechauns don't exist.
You have a seeming tendency to break the world down into a binary of pure black and white that I did not anticipate when starting this conversation.
Really? I'm only interested in truth, provable facts, scientific evidence. It either exists, or it doesn't exist. What I'm sharing with you is backed up by science and hundreds of case studies. What the establishment is sharing lacks even a modicum of scientific evidence. What happened one time to one guy is about as far from scientific proof as we can get.
I do not see the world this way, and will argue in those terms.
You'll have to demonstrate how you think "I see the world as black and white" with an example. As I see it, either the establishment can provide rigorous scientific proof of their claims, or they can't. If you rationalize this away as me "seeing black and white", there's really nowhere for us to go, is there.? There is actual science, and then there is pseudoscience. The western medical establishment is largely based on the latter. "Germ theory" is a completely refuted hypothesis in truth. It's been a failed theory since the days of Pasteur and Koch. They disproved themselves countless times, and then turned around and lied about it. Pasteur admits as much in his diaries. He was a snake, a thief, a plagiarist, a liar, a failure as a chemist, and most of all, a fame-seeking politician in reality. And this is the guy in all the textbooks that has 37 "infectious dis-ease centers" around the world named after him. Fauci, Einstein, Freud, Darwin, Jenner, Pasteur - these are our MODERN DAY heroes of science. And they are all fundamentally wrong. Do you see the pattern?
I'm not sure this can be as productive as I had hoped.
I don't know how this conversation could be any more productive? If you wish to defend germ theory or why Koch's Postulates are "outdated" or "irrelevant", as I've heard many pseudo-experts state in recent years, you'll need to explain exactly why from the "positive example" side of things, not the negative. As I see it, anything less than a 50% success rate on transferring microbes to healthy people and making them sick with the dis-ease demands a deeper investigation. That all known efforts to prove the postulates, which are EXTREMELY difficult to find BTW, demonstrate a 0-5% success rate should put an end to this long-ago disproven THEORY.
Please explain how you think my reasoning is incorrect. As to the "black and white" issue, as I see it, either the medical establishment is lying to us, or they're not. There's no "gray area". I'm quite confident in stating they're absolutely wrong about every claim they make about dis-ease causation. They don't have one right. It's not germs, toxins, carcinogens, diet, lifestyle, nor their never-proven "GENES nonsense. They've never been able to prove one of these claims....because none of them are even remotely true. If you look closely at their claims, you'll see all generate a form of FEAR in you, take your power away, and engender VICTIM CONSCIOUSNESS in the masses.
This is the primary agenda of the cabal and everything they do is an effort to make you feel scared and helpless so as to continue their apparent domination over us. Their fraudulent medical system is just one lever of their machine of deception.
But hey, I'm all ears if you can demonstrate how I'm mistaken. Unlike most people you run across in this world, I'm ready and willing to admit when I'm wrong. I don't operate on "beliefs", like the majority do. I know that you can't upend a belief with a fact, because beliefs aren't based on any facts. And beliefs are what the western medical system is based upon. The only value in any of it is in emergency/trauma care.
They're "unworkable" because nobody could demonstrate dis-ease causation worked this way. And many tried, for decades. A rational person with no agenda would quickly come to the only logical conclusion which is -> "microbes do not CAUSE dis-ease". But once your career and reputation are on the line and the medical cabal is backing you and your partners in crime, you've got to pivot somehow. This is all easily explained.
It's al quite simple. If nobody can take bacteria that are said to be the CAUSE of a dis-ease and make healthy people sick with said dis-ease, then the THEORY must be scrapped. And this is precisely what all their scientific results showed. Again and again and again.
Yes it is. But you either don't understand just how simple it is, or you're in denial of their simplicity.
This statement is a classic example of building a strawman argument, which is required to hide the total failure of satisfying Koch's Postulates.
Now, flip the tables. I'll play the game of "strong immune system" with you, even though no such "system" exists in reality. But let's say this is all true for argument's sake. Now, you must explain why all attempts to demonstrate Koch's Postulates resulted in VIRTUALLY NOBODY getting sick. If 5% of the people in your scientific experiment come down with symptoms, but 95% are "not symptomatic" would you consider this "proof" of your theory? Are we to now conclude that 95% of the people just happen to have a "strong immune system"?
Would any sane and rational scientist stick with this THEORY with only a 5% success rate? Well this is what they've effectively done for over 100 years. It would seem the "sane and rational scientists" must learn to "go along to get along" or else find themselves without a job/career shortly thereafter. Do you think this is a possibility?
I don't know what you're implying here. What other THEORY is "in use" in establishment medicine?
You're referencing Barry Marshall I presume. So you're willing to defend the entirety of germ theory based on a sample size of one doctor who had a pre-determined agenda? This is not scientific evidence of any kind, wouldn't you agree? Where are the follow-up experiments? Were his results proven to be accurate with large sample sizes? Did other experimenters replicate his findings?
I can guarantee you that some other researchers tried to replicate his findings. And I can also guarantee you they all failed. And this is why there are no follow-up experiments. Because when they fail, they don't publish and bury their results. Very simple.
Now, what if I told you I could sample 100 random people off the street and perform the same test as Marshall, and perhaps 3-5 would indeed "get sick" just like Marshall did. Would that prove his findings correct or would you stop and consider some other possibilities with such a low success rate?
I'd bet the farm that those 3-5 people were struggling with an anger conflict, a situation in life they "could not stomach" to be precise. Such a conflict could easily be ascribed to Marshall after all his failures to prove his H-pylori theory. He was sure he had it figured out, but all his experiments failed. Next he drinks the bacteria, sure that it's going to work. And bang, he starts to feel bad. This is encouraging to him. He resolves his anger conflict and now his body begins producing the form "H-pylori", right along with the bacteria he drank.
Basically the same holds true for our 3-5 who get sick. They are all dealing with anger conflicts, likely taking anti-biotics to kill their own gut bacteria, but drinking them re-initiates their activity again.
Perhaps there are even another 5 who are actively on anti-biotics at the time, and they have a "minor reaction" to the test.
But the other 90, not currently dealing with any anger conflicts, don't have any reaction at all.
This is a superior explanation that actually makes logical, rational sense. The inferior explanation, by a landslide, is that the other 90% just had a 'strong immune system". Without any proof at all to back it up. You'll find all of mainstream allopathic medicine rests on these unverifiable claims. They can't prove they're right, and thus, we can't disprove what they claim. It's like me asking you to prove that leprechauns don't exist.
Really? I'm only interested in truth, provable facts, scientific evidence. It either exists, or it doesn't exist. What I'm sharing with you is backed up by science and hundreds of case studies. What the establishment is sharing lacks even a modicum of scientific evidence. What happened one time to one guy is about as far from scientific proof as we can get.
You'll have to demonstrate how you think "I see the world as black and white" with an example. As I see it, either the establishment can provide rigorous scientific proof of their claims, or they can't. If you rationalize this away as me "seeing black and white", there's really nowhere for us to go, is there.? There is actual science, and then there is pseudoscience. The western medical establishment is largely based on the latter. "Germ theory" is a completely refuted hypothesis in truth. It's been a failed theory since the days of Pasteur and Koch. They disproved themselves countless times, and then turned around and lied about it. Pasteur admits as much in his diaries. He was a snake, a thief, a plagiarist, a liar, a failure as a chemist, and most of all, a fame-seeking politician in reality. And this is the guy in all the textbooks that has 37 "infectious dis-ease centers" around the world named after him. Fauci, Einstein, Freud, Darwin, Jenner, Pasteur - these are our MODERN DAY heroes of science. And they are all fundamentally wrong. Do you see the pattern?
I don't know how this conversation could be any more productive? If you wish to defend germ theory or why Koch's Postulates are "outdated" or "irrelevant", as I've heard many pseudo-experts state in recent years, you'll need to explain exactly why from the "positive example" side of things, not the negative. As I see it, anything less than a 50% success rate on transferring microbes to healthy people and making them sick with the dis-ease demands a deeper investigation. That all known efforts to prove the postulates, which are EXTREMELY difficult to find BTW, demonstrate a 0-5% success rate should put an end to this long-ago disproven THEORY.
Please explain how you think my reasoning is incorrect. As to the "black and white" issue, as I see it, either the medical establishment is lying to us, or they're not. There's no "gray area". I'm quite confident in stating they're absolutely wrong about every claim they make about dis-ease causation. They don't have one right. It's not germs, toxins, carcinogens, diet, lifestyle, nor their never-proven "GENES nonsense. They've never been able to prove one of these claims....because none of them are even remotely true. If you look closely at their claims, you'll see all generate a form of FEAR in you, take your power away, and engender VICTIM CONSCIOUSNESS in the masses.
This is the primary agenda of the cabal and everything they do is an effort to make you feel scared and helpless so as to continue their apparent domination over us. Their fraudulent medical system is just one lever of their machine of deception.
But hey, I'm all ears if you can demonstrate how I'm mistaken. Unlike most people you run across in this world, I'm ready and willing to admit when I'm wrong. I don't operate on "beliefs", like the majority do. I know that you can't upend a belief with a fact, because beliefs aren't based on any facts. And beliefs are what the western medical system is based upon. The only value in any of it is in emergency/trauma care.