Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing the existence of viruses. There was. But there has never been any adequate proof in support of this hypothesis, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation of disease, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove material existence and causation of a virus, it is the logical requirement of proving material existence and causation of ANY thing that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form. Unless you have a replacement for them that is equally rigorous in the logical fundamentals, you are simply practicing voodoo.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be discovered.

In any case, the above argument is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing the existence of viruses. There was. But there has never been any adequate proof in support of this hypothesis, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove material existence and causation of a virus, it is the logical requirement of proving material existence and causation of ANY thing that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form. Unless you have a replacement for them that is equally rigorous in the logical fundamentals, you are simply practicing voodoo.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing the existence of viruses. There was. But there has never been any adequate proof in support of this hypothesis, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove material existence and causation of a virus, it is the logical requirement of proving material existence and causation of ANY thing that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form. Unless you have a replacement for them that is equally rigorous in the logical fundamentals, you are simply practicing voodoo.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing the existence of viruses. There was. But there has never been any adequate proof in support of this hypothesis, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove material existence and causation of a virus, it is the logical requirement of proving material existence and causation of ANY thing that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form. Unless you have a replacement for them that is equally rigorous in the logical fundamentals, you are simply practicing voodoo.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing viruses. There was. But there has never been any proof for their existence, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove material existence and causation of a virus, it is the logical requirement of proving material existence and causation of ANY thing that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form. Unless you have a replacement for them that is equally rigorous in the logical fundamentals, you are simply practicing voodoo.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing viruses. There was. But there has never been any proof for their existence, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove material existence and causation of a virus, it is the logical requirement of proving material existence and causation of ANY thing that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing viruses. There was. But there has never been any proof for their existence, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It is not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove causation, it is the logical requirement of proving causation that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing viruses. There was. But there has never been any proof for their existence, and even if there were, we would still have to overcome the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates that dictate to us why and how we have to prove causation, it is the logical requirement of proving causation that dictated to Koch why and how to formulate his postulates in their particular form.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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 still need to be fulfilled by some other set of applied criteria. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing viruses. There was. But there has never been any proof for their existence, and even if there were, we would still have to pass the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's Postulates. It's not the postulates that make it so that we have to prove causation, it is the logical requirement of proving causation that caused Koch to formulate his postulates.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority. All true scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. Because the postulates don't stand on their own, but actually represent underlying, abstract and unalterable requirements of logic. It is a patently false claim, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud. I'm not claiming that there was never any good evidence for hypothesizing viruses. There was. But there has never been any proof for their existence, and even if there were, we would still have to pass the very formidable hurdle of proving that they cause disease, which poses its own daunting challenges of setting up further satisfactory methodologies for proving, which have not been done. The aspect of proving causation, not incidentally, is also part of Koch's Postulates. It's not the postulates that make it so that we have to prove causation, it is the logical requirement of proving causation that caused Koch to formulate his postulates.

Those who claim the "virus" was isolated are the ones saying Koch's postulates aren't applicable. Mikovits is the most prominent among them. I say, ok, fine, throw out Koch's postulates, but only if you've replaced them with an acceptable alternative set of criteria that OBEYS and SATISFIES the exact same set of logical principles that underlie Koch's postulates. It's not the postulates themselves that command authority, it is the logical principles underneath them that give them their authority All scientific methods - every single one - are merely applied procedures for embodying abstract logical principles. The logic underpinning them is absolute and applies to all objectively verifiable objects. Koch's postulates are merely an applied chain of logical principles. 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. This is what I mean by systematic methodology. If a practical, applicable set of criteria cannot be set up to replace Koch's postulates AND satisfy the identical logical principles that underlie them, then we have no way at the time being of advancing further in knowledge.

Without an applicable method, we are stuck, such as scientists were stuck in their knowledge of the composition of the stars before light spectroscopy. Even Auguste Comte once claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, a very foolish thing to say because 1. nothing objectively real could ever be claimed to be theoretically beyond knowing, and 2. therefore we are only limited by what we can practically come up with in terms of applicable methodology for scrutinizing anything that is objectively real. And because this body of scientific methodology development is always evolving and not theoretically limited in any way, it is a very dicey claim to make that something will never be able to be discovered.

In any case, this is why it is laughable when anyone claims to have discovered a "virus" without Koch's postulates but without having offered a satisfactory replacement for them. It is patently false, and therefore the very simplest form of fraud.