Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

Since viruses were not known at the time of Koch's postulates they also don't apply to viruses so stop trying to apply them to viruses and stop using sources that are trying to apply Koch's postulates to viruses.

Saying that Koch's postulates shouldn't be used for viruses is akin to saying that modern physics shouldn't be applied to black holes because the laws of physics were determined before black holes were discovered. Yes, Koch wrote his postulates before viruses were allegedly discovered, but that doesn't mean that logic should be suspended just because of that. Koch's postulates were reasonable. The problem was that the emerging field of virology couldn't find viruses using Koch's postulates, so they watered down the standards in order to "find" these "viruses" with River's postulates. Viroliegy.com has a good article on this here:

Thomas Rivers Revision of Koch’s Postulates (1937) | viroliegy.com

Quoting from it:

**
In 1884, German scientist Robert Koch devised a set of logic-based criteria that needed to be met in order to prove a specific pathogen caused a disease. By 1890, he had refined and published them. At the time, Koch’s criteria were developed for bacteria as “viruses” were unknown and were not officially “discovered” until 1892 with the Tobacco Mosaic “virus” for plants. The four original Postulates were:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all cases of those suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy subjects.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased subject and grown in pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause the exact same disease when introduced into a healthy subject.

4.The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.​

By 1937, it was very clear that virologists were unable to satisfy any of Koch’s Postulates in order to prove invisible particles assumed to be “viruses” existed and could cause disease. Even Robert Koch himself had difficulty with his own Postulates which led him to wiggle around some of them in attempts to “prove” pathogenicity of certain bacteria. Instead of accepting that the Postulates, as originally stated, worked and disproved the Germ Theory, virologists looked to various indirect immunological methods to prove their claims.

This led to Thomas Rivers and his own attempts to water down Koch’s Postulates by revising them to allow virologists even more wiggle room and expanding the 4 Postulates to 6. Unfortunately for all of virology, Koch had unintentionally trapped them in a logical prison for which they still can not free themselves from. If virologists deny Koch’s original Postulates, they are denying logic itself. Presented below are highlights from River’s attempted revision:

[snip]

These are just a few highlights and I highly recommend reading the full 12 pages as there are many interesting admissions I unfortunately had to leave out for length/editing purposes. It is clear that Rivers revisions of Koch’s Postulates are not the same as those originally proposed by Koch himself. Rivers even admits numerous times that his criteria are different and laid out three main ways that they differ:

1. He allows for the “virus” not to be found in every case of disease
2. He introduces the concept of “virus” carriers
3. He states that “viruses” do not need to be grown in culture

All Rivers did was deliberately weaken Koch’s Postulates in order to make life easier for virologists to skirt around established rules of logic. Anyone claiming that they fulfilled Koch’s Postulates by using the criteria laid forth by Rivers are outright lying and being intentionally fraudulent…which in all honesty, sums up virology to a T.
**

 

[Scott]

You apparently haven't considered the possibility that a cold or flu might be caused by something other than a virus. Some definitely have. I personally found Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow to offer a compelling alternative to this belief.

The problem is you have not provided any valid theory that would tell us what is causing cold and flu.

Agreed, though I did point you to a source that has one I now believe is more likely, namely Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow. I'll quote a portion of it that makes the case that it is actually Electro Magnectic Frequencies, or EMFs for short, that is the true cause of the flu. Note that the author still believes in viruses, but believes that the triggering factor is not the alleged flu virus, but rather EMFs:

**
Influenza Is an Electrical Disease

Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the “influence” of the stars.



But in 1889 influenza was tamed. From that year forward it would be present always, in every part of the world. It would vanish mysteriously as before, but it could be counted on to return, at more or less the same time, the following year. And it has never been absent since.

Like “anxiety disorder,” influenza is so common and so seemingly familiar that a thorough review of its history is necessary to unmask this stranger and convey the enormity of the public health disaster that occurred one hundred and thirty years ago. It’s not that we don’t know enough about the influenza virus. We know more than enough. The microscopic virus associated with this disease has been so exhaustively studied that scientists know more about its tiny life cycle than about any other single microorganism. But this has been a reason to ignore many unusual facts about this disease, including the fact that it is not contagious.

In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping, together with two British Columbia physicians, were the latest scientists to confirm, yet again, that for at least the last three centuries influenza pandemics have been most likely to occur during peaks of solar magnetic activity—that is, at the height of each eleven-year sun cycle.

Such a trend is not the only aspect of this disease that has long puzzled virologists. In 1992, one of the world’s authorities on the epidemiology of influenza, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, published a book in which he reviewed the essential known facts and pointed out that they did not support a mode of transmission by direct human-to-human contact. Hope-Simpson had been perplexed by influenza for a long time, in fact ever since he had treated its victims as a young general practitioner in Dorset, England, during the 1932–1933 epidemic—the very epidemic during which the virus that is associated with the disease in humans was first isolated. But during his 71-year career Hope-Simpson’s questions were never answered. “The sudden explosion of information about the nature of the virus and its antigenic reactions in the human host,” he wrote in 1992, had only “added to the features calling for explanation.”3

Why is influenza seasonal? he still wondered. Why is influenza almost completely absent except during the few weeks or months of an epidemic? Why do flu epidemics end? Why don’t out-of-season epidemics spread? How do epidemics explode over whole countries at once, and disappear just as miraculously, as if suddenly prohibited? He could not figure out how a virus could possibly behave like this. Why does flu so often target young adults and spare infants and the elderly? How is it possible that flu epidemics traveled at the same blinding speed in past centuries as they do today? How does the virus accomplish its so-called “vanishing trick”? This refers to the fact that when a new strain of the virus appears, the old strain, between one season and the next, has vanished completely, all over the world at once. Hope-Simpson listed twenty-one separate facts about influenza that puzzled him and that seemed to defy explanation if one assumed that it was spread by direct contact.

He finally revived a theory that was first put forward by Richard Shope, the researcher who isolated the first flu virus in pigs in 1931, and who also did not believe that the explosive nature of many outbreaks could be explained by direct contagion. Shope, and later Hope-Simpson, proposed that the flu is not in fact spread from person to person, or pig to pig, in the normal way, but that it instead remains latent in human or swine carriers, who are scattered in large numbers throughout their communities until the virus is reactivated by an environmental trigger of some sort. Hope-Simpson further proposed that the trigger is connected to seasonal variations in solar radiation, and that it may be electromagnetic in nature, as a good many of his predecessors during the previous two centuries had suggested.
**

Firstenberg, Arthur; Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow (pp. 80-83). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

[Scott]

Since viruses were not known at the time of Koch's postulates they also don't apply to viruses so stop trying to apply them to viruses and stop using sources that are trying to apply Koch's postulates to viruses.

You’re right!
https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/cmr.9.1.18

I addressed the fact that Koch came up with his postulates prior to viruses allegedly being discovered in Post #501.

https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/...es-covid-and-misinformation-rabbit-holes.html

Dr. Mark Bailey actually addressed Dr. Siouxsie Wiles' claims and the article of hers that you linked to above in his essay titled "A Farewell to Virology - Expert Edition". Quoting from it:

**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that, “the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic...and helping to keep us safe.”8 In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else.

Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definiEon of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with Na Zhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include...animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15
**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com

 

[Scott]

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

Agreed. Hitting me with insults is hitting me with insults.

If you have an argument then present it.

I've presented many and continues to present them. If you could just focus on those instead of insulting me and/or my beliefs, I think we'd all be better off.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I addressed the fact that Koch came up with his postulates prior to viruses allegedly being discovered in Post #501.



Dr. Mark Bailey actually addressed Dr. Siouxsie Wiles' claims and the article of hers that you linked to above in his essay titled "A Farewell to Virology - Expert Edition". Quoting from it:

**
DR SIOUXSIE WILES — VIROLOGY’S ‘ISOLATION’ ACOLYTE

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses. — Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015.4​

The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles.5 Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,”6 and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that, “the world is on fire,” in March 2020,7 was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic...and helping to keep us safe.”8 In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.”9 Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates,10 which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates11 into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else.

Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health OrganizaEon (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”12 The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive.13 The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere.14 Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definiEon of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with Na Zhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include...animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”15
**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com

this is highly suspect.

why are they afraid to isolate viruses?

what are they hiding?

 

[Scott]

this is highly suspect.

why are they afraid to isolate viruses?

what are they hiding?

It's not that they're afraid to isolate them, it's that they can't do it. They can isolate proteins, which are smaller, but for some reasons viruses elude them. The only conclusion that makes sense to me as to why is because they don't exist.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've never claimed that something can't exist unless it has been isolated.



I'm beginning to wonder if you understand why Koch's postulates were for microorganisms only. There is no need to "isolate" humans, because we can literally see what humans do with our own eyes.

Koch's postulates works for bacteria. Viruses are not bacteria. Humans are not bacteria.
You are using sources that consistently claim viruses don't exist because they have not been isolated. Do you not read and understand your sources? Or are you just a troll?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Saying that Koch's postulates shouldn't be used for viruses is akin to saying that modern physics shouldn't be applied to black holes because the laws of physics were determined before black holes were discovered. Yes, Koch wrote his postulates before viruses were allegedly discovered, but that doesn't mean that logic should be suspended just because of that. Koch's postulates were reasonable. The problem was that the emerging field of virology couldn't find viruses using Koch's postulates, so they watered down the standards in order to "find" these "viruses" with River's postulates. Viroliegy.com has a good article on this here:
**

Physics predicted black holes before they were found so your analogy is false.

The rest of your post simply points to the reality that even Koch accepted that his postulates don't apply to viruses. You are simply making a circular argument. Demanding that Koch's postulates work with viruses and then complaining that because it doesn't work, they changed them.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Agreed, though I did point you to a source that has one I now believe is more likely, namely Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow. I'll quote a portion of it that makes the case that it is actually Electro Magnectic Frequencies, or EMFs for short, that is the true cause of the flu. Note that the author still believes in viruses, but believes that the triggering factor is not the alleged flu virus, but rather EMFs:

**
Influenza Is an Electrical Disease

Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the “influence” of the stars.

View attachment 24572

But in 1889 influenza was tamed. From that year forward it would be present always, in every part of the world. It would vanish mysteriously as before, but it could be counted on to return, at more or less the same time, the following year. And it has never been absent since.

Like “anxiety disorder,” influenza is so common and so seemingly familiar that a thorough review of its history is necessary to unmask this stranger and convey the enormity of the public health disaster that occurred one hundred and thirty years ago. It’s not that we don’t know enough about the influenza virus. We know more than enough. The microscopic virus associated with this disease has been so exhaustively studied that scientists know more about its tiny life cycle than about any other single microorganism. But this has been a reason to ignore many unusual facts about this disease, including the fact that it is not contagious.

In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping, together with two British Columbia physicians, were the latest scientists to confirm, yet again, that for at least the last three centuries influenza pandemics have been most likely to occur during peaks of solar magnetic activity—that is, at the height of each eleven-year sun cycle.

Such a trend is not the only aspect of this disease that has long puzzled virologists. In 1992, one of the world’s authorities on the epidemiology of influenza, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, published a book in which he reviewed the essential known facts and pointed out that they did not support a mode of transmission by direct human-to-human contact. Hope-Simpson had been perplexed by influenza for a long time, in fact ever since he had treated its victims as a young general practitioner in Dorset, England, during the 1932–1933 epidemic—the very epidemic during which the virus that is associated with the disease in humans was first isolated. But during his 71-year career Hope-Simpson’s questions were never answered. “The sudden explosion of information about the nature of the virus and its antigenic reactions in the human host,” he wrote in 1992, had only “added to the features calling for explanation.”3

Why is influenza seasonal? he still wondered. Why is influenza almost completely absent except during the few weeks or months of an epidemic? Why do flu epidemics end? Why don’t out-of-season epidemics spread? How do epidemics explode over whole countries at once, and disappear just as miraculously, as if suddenly prohibited? He could not figure out how a virus could possibly behave like this. Why does flu so often target young adults and spare infants and the elderly? How is it possible that flu epidemics traveled at the same blinding speed in past centuries as they do today? How does the virus accomplish its so-called “vanishing trick”? This refers to the fact that when a new strain of the virus appears, the old strain, between one season and the next, has vanished completely, all over the world at once. Hope-Simpson listed twenty-one separate facts about influenza that puzzled him and that seemed to defy explanation if one assumed that it was spread by direct contact.

He finally revived a theory that was first put forward by Richard Shope, the researcher who isolated the first flu virus in pigs in 1931, and who also did not believe that the explosive nature of many outbreaks could be explained by direct contagion. Shope, and later Hope-Simpson, proposed that the flu is not in fact spread from person to person, or pig to pig, in the normal way, but that it instead remains latent in human or swine carriers, who are scattered in large numbers throughout their communities until the virus is reactivated by an environmental trigger of some sort. Hope-Simpson further proposed that the trigger is connected to seasonal variations in solar radiation, and that it may be electromagnetic in nature, as a good many of his predecessors during the previous two centuries had suggested.
**

Firstenberg, Arthur; Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow (pp. 80-83). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

So now you are arguing the the viruses DO exist? ROFLMAO.
Which is it? Viruses exist but they aren't contagious or viruses don't exist at all? You can't argue that this is a reason for disease to spread after you argue that viruses don't exist a all.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I've presented many and continues to present them. If you could just focus on those instead of insulting me and/or my beliefs, I think we'd all be better off.

LOL.
You have argued that viruses don't exist. You have argued that viruses do exist and electromagnetism activates the viruses.


You are not presenting arguments. You are simply throwing shit at the wall.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's not that they're afraid to isolate them, it's that they can't do it. They can isolate proteins, which are smaller, but for some reasons viruses elude them. The only conclusion that makes sense to me as to why is because they don't exist.

More bullshit from you.
Tell us when a protein has been isolated and grown in a culture. That is the "isolate" demand you make for viruses.

 

[Scott]

Forget about sequencing, there's no solid evidence that the Cov 2 virus has even been -isolated-, as journalist Iain Davis points out in his article, COVID19 -Evidence of Global Fraud. Quoting from it:

**
The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in samples with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no priori knowledge of the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.
**

Not isolating this alleged virus has secondary effects, something which Iain gets into in the introduction to his article:

**
COVID 19, and the subsequent governmental responses, appear to be part of an international conspiracy to commit fraud. It seems there is no evidence that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called COVID 19.

Sometimes you have to go with your gut. I am not an expert in genetics and, as ever, stand to be corrected. However my attention was drawn to some research published by the Spanish medical journal D-Salud-Discovery. Their advisory board of eminently qualified physicians and scientists lends further credibility to their research. Their claim is astounding.

The genetic primers and probes used in RT-PCR tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 do not target anything specific. I followed the search techniques outlined in this English translation of their report and can corroborate the accuracy of their claims about the nucleotide sequences listed in the World Health Organisations protocols. You can do the same.

D-Salud-Discovery state there are no tests capable of identifying SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, all claims about the alleged impact of COVID 19 on population health are groundless.

The entire official COVID 19 narrative is a deception. Ostensibly, there is no scientific foundation for any part of it.

If these claims are accurate we can state that there is no evidence of a pandemic, merely the illusion of one. We have suffered incalculable loss for no evident reason, other than the ambitions of unscrupulous despots who wish to transform the global economy and our society to suit their purposes.

In doing so this “parasite class” have potentially committed countless crimes. These crimes can and should be investigated and prosecuted in a court of law.
**

You are now repeating the same ridiculous arguments over and over.

What exactly do you find "ridiculous" about them?

What is ridiculous is that they can't explain reality better than virus theory.
What is ridiculous about them is they rely on fallacies.
What is ridiculous about them is you can't defend them with any facts or logic.

Unsubstantiated assertions don't help your position.

 

[Scott]

Koch's postulates are simply a means to an end, in this case the end being providing solid evidence that viruses actually exist. The statement referenced in the opening post essentially improves on Koch's postultes, as well as providing a first step for those who would like to try to provide solid evidence that biological viruses do in fact exist.

Koch's postulates apply to bacteria.

From Wikipedia:
**
Koch's postulates (/kɒx/ KOKH)[2] are four criteria designed to establish a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates

There's no mention that it was designed specifically for bacteria, only microbes. Alleged viruses certainly qualify there.

Applying Koch's postulates to anything that isn't bacteria doesn't prove that thing doesn't exist.

I never said it did. Unicorns might be real too. The issue is not whether applying Koch's postulates on a microbe and coming up empty proves that the microbe doesn't exist, but it -does- strongly suggest it.

Isolation is the requirement in Koch's postulates.

Isolation and re-isolation, to be precise. Quoting from Wikipedia:

**
Koch's four postulates are:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.​

**

Source:
Koch's postulates | Wikipedia

LOL.... Now you are back to trying to use Koch's postulates after you wanted to get away from them just a few posts ago.

What I wanted a few posts ago was to get to the point of Koch's postulates rather than being hung up on the postulates themselves. Their purpose is to try to find out whether or not a given microbe causes disease. At present, I just wanted to point out that Koch's postulates call for not just the isolation of a microbe, but the re-isolation of said microbe after going through some steps.

Using the word isolate to mean one thing and then another is the equivocation fallacy. Humans can not be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.

Agreed. They are not microbes either. Apparently you missed that part of Koch's postulates.

I never argued that not being able to isolate viruses meant there was proof that they don't exist, but it certainly strongly -suggests- that they don't exist. Similarly, a failure to isolate (or even find) unicorns strongly suggests that they don't exist, but it isn't -proof- that they don't exist.

Prove that viruses haven't been isolated.

You may have noticed that proving -anything- is pretty hard to do. The signatories of the statement referenced in the opening post never claim that they have proven that an alleged virus has never been isolated. Instead, they challenge anyone in the world to try to ascertain that a virus anywhere has ever been isolated. So far, it appears that no one's been able to do this.

 

[Scott]

This is what we had before the polio vaccine was discovered. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1047...-the-last-to-still-rely-on-an-iron-lung-to-br There were money drives that school kids participated in. They gave us folders with slots for dimes and quarters that we would fill and return to school. Salk saved millions from this fate with a VACCINE.

You may find the following article educational:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

 

[Scott]

A virus exists by definition, dude.

Repeating a claim without evidence doesn't make it more persuasive to anyone who believes that evidence for a claim is important.

I don't need evidence.

You're right, you don't. But you may find it hard to persuade others that your points of view are right without it.

 

[Scott]

Next time you get a cold or flu, I guess you created it.

You apparently haven't considered the possibility that a cold or flu might be caused by something other than a virus. Some definitely have. I personally found Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow to offer a compelling alternative to this belief.

The influenza series is known.

You may find Post #502 educational.

 

[Scott]

I'm beginning to wonder if you understand why Koch's postulates were for microorganisms only. There is no need to "isolate" humans, because we can literally see what humans do with our own eyes.

Koch's postulates works for bacteria.

Apparently not always:
**
Even Robert Koch himself had difficulty with his own Postulates which led him to wiggle around some of them in attempts to “prove” pathogenicity of certain bacteria.
**

Source:
Thomas Rivers Revision of Koch’s Postulates (1937) | viroliegy.com

Viruses are not bacteria.

True, but they are still microbes, which is what Koch's postulates were for. I think that the article from viroliegy referenced above provides a good summation for why Koch's Postulates were ditched for viruses:

**
By 1937, it was very clear that virologists were unable to satisfy any of Koch’s Postulates in order to prove invisible particles assumed to be “viruses” existed and could cause disease. Even Robert Koch himself had difficulty with his own Postulates which led him to wiggle around some of them in attempts to “prove” pathogenicity of certain bacteria. Instead of accepting that the Postulates, as originally stated, worked and disproved the Germ Theory, virologists looked to various indirect immunological methods to prove their claims.

This led to Thomas Rivers and his own attempts to water down Koch’s Postulates by revising them to allow virologists even more wiggle room and expanding the 4 Postulates to 6. Unfortunately for all of virology, Koch had unintentionally trapped them in a logical prison for which they still can not free themselves from. If virologists deny Koch’s original Postulates, they are denying logic itself.
**

 

[Scott]

Saying that Koch's postulates shouldn't be used for viruses is akin to saying that modern physics shouldn't be applied to black holes because the laws of physics were determined before black holes were discovered. Yes, Koch wrote his postulates before viruses were allegedly discovered, but that doesn't mean that logic should be suspended just because of that. Koch's postulates were reasonable. The problem was that the emerging field of virology couldn't find viruses using Koch's postulates, so they watered down the standards in order to "find" these "viruses" with River's postulates. Viroliegy.com has a good article on this here:

Thomas Rivers Revision of Koch’s Postulates (1937) | viroliegy.com

Quoting from it:

**
In 1884, German scientist Robert Koch devised a set of logic-based criteria that needed to be met in order to prove a specific pathogen caused a disease. By 1890, he had refined and published them. At the time, Koch’s criteria were developed for bacteria as “viruses” were unknown and were not officially “discovered” until 1892 with the Tobacco Mosaic “virus” for plants. The four original Postulates were:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all cases of those suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy subjects.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased subject and grown in pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause the exact same disease when introduced into a healthy subject.

4.The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.​

By 1937, it was very clear that virologists were unable to satisfy any of Koch’s Postulates in order to prove invisible particles assumed to be “viruses” existed and could cause disease. Even Robert Koch himself had difficulty with his own Postulates which led him to wiggle around some of them in attempts to “prove” pathogenicity of certain bacteria. Instead of accepting that the Postulates, as originally stated, worked and disproved the Germ Theory, virologists looked to various indirect immunological methods to prove their claims.

This led to Thomas Rivers and his own attempts to water down Koch’s Postulates by revising them to allow virologists even more wiggle room and expanding the 4 Postulates to 6. Unfortunately for all of virology, Koch had unintentionally trapped them in a logical prison for which they still can not free themselves from. If virologists deny Koch’s original Postulates, they are denying logic itself. Presented below are highlights from River’s attempted revision:

[snip]

These are just a few highlights and I highly recommend reading the full 12 pages as there are many interesting admissions I unfortunately had to leave out for length/editing purposes. It is clear that Rivers revisions of Koch’s Postulates are not the same as those originally proposed by Koch himself. Rivers even admits numerous times that his criteria are different and laid out three main ways that they differ:

1. He allows for the “virus” not to be found in every case of disease
2. He introduces the concept of “virus” carriers
3. He states that “viruses” do not need to be grown in culture

All Rivers did was deliberately weaken Koch’s Postulates in order to make life easier for virologists to skirt around established rules of logic. Anyone claiming that they fulfilled Koch’s Postulates by using the criteria laid forth by Rivers are outright lying and being intentionally fraudulent…which in all honesty, sums up virology to a T.
**

Physics predicted black holes before they were found so your analogy is false.

Yes, physics predicted it, but it's also been said that physics break down in black holes:
How physics breaks down in a black hole | phys.org

Clearly, the laws of physics can't be the complete picture if they break down there- that's what I was trying to get at, that Koch's postulates should work for any microorganism regardless of the fact that they weren't discovered until after Koch formed his postulates. In any case, as an aside, just found this interesting article on black holes that came out about a week ago:
Scientists find first evidence that black holes are the source of dark energy | phys.org

The rest of your post simply points to the reality that even Koch accepted that his postulates don't apply to viruses.

I think you're confusing Rivers with Koch. As to River's conclusions that a new set of postulates were needed for alleged biological viruses, I think that the viroliegy article sums up the reason for that quite aptly in the last bit that I quoted in it:

**
All Rivers did was deliberately weaken Koch’s Postulates in order to make life easier for virologists to skirt around established rules of logic. Anyone claiming that they fulfilled Koch’s Postulates by using the criteria laid forth by Rivers are outright lying and being intentionally fraudulent…which in all honesty, sums up virology to a T.
**

Source:
Thomas Rivers Revision of Koch’s Postulates (1937) | viroliegy.com

 

[Scott]

Agreed, though I did point you to a source that has one I now believe is more likely, namely Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow. I'll quote a portion of it that makes the case that it is actually Electro Magnectic Frequencies, or EMFs for short, that is the true cause of the flu. Note that the author still believes in viruses, but believes that the triggering factor is not the alleged flu virus, but rather EMFs:

**
Influenza Is an Electrical Disease

Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the “influence” of the stars.

View attachment 24572

But in 1889 influenza was tamed. From that year forward it would be present always, in every part of the world. It would vanish mysteriously as before, but it could be counted on to return, at more or less the same time, the following year. And it has never been absent since.

Like “anxiety disorder,” influenza is so common and so seemingly familiar that a thorough review of its history is necessary to unmask this stranger and convey the enormity of the public health disaster that occurred one hundred and thirty years ago. It’s not that we don’t know enough about the influenza virus. We know more than enough. The microscopic virus associated with this disease has been so exhaustively studied that scientists know more about its tiny life cycle than about any other single microorganism. But this has been a reason to ignore many unusual facts about this disease, including the fact that it is not contagious.

In 2001, Canadian astronomer Ken Tapping, together with two British Columbia physicians, were the latest scientists to confirm, yet again, that for at least the last three centuries influenza pandemics have been most likely to occur during peaks of solar magnetic activity—that is, at the height of each eleven-year sun cycle.

Such a trend is not the only aspect of this disease that has long puzzled virologists. In 1992, one of the world’s authorities on the epidemiology of influenza, R. Edgar Hope-Simpson, published a book in which he reviewed the essential known facts and pointed out that they did not support a mode of transmission by direct human-to-human contact. Hope-Simpson had been perplexed by influenza for a long time, in fact ever since he had treated its victims as a young general practitioner in Dorset, England, during the 1932–1933 epidemic—the very epidemic during which the virus that is associated with the disease in humans was first isolated. But during his 71-year career Hope-Simpson’s questions were never answered. “The sudden explosion of information about the nature of the virus and its antigenic reactions in the human host,” he wrote in 1992, had only “added to the features calling for explanation.”3

Why is influenza seasonal? he still wondered. Why is influenza almost completely absent except during the few weeks or months of an epidemic? Why do flu epidemics end? Why don’t out-of-season epidemics spread? How do epidemics explode over whole countries at once, and disappear just as miraculously, as if suddenly prohibited? He could not figure out how a virus could possibly behave like this. Why does flu so often target young adults and spare infants and the elderly? How is it possible that flu epidemics traveled at the same blinding speed in past centuries as they do today? How does the virus accomplish its so-called “vanishing trick”? This refers to the fact that when a new strain of the virus appears, the old strain, between one season and the next, has vanished completely, all over the world at once. Hope-Simpson listed twenty-one separate facts about influenza that puzzled him and that seemed to defy explanation if one assumed that it was spread by direct contact.

He finally revived a theory that was first put forward by Richard Shope, the researcher who isolated the first flu virus in pigs in 1931, and who also did not believe that the explosive nature of many outbreaks could be explained by direct contagion. Shope, and later Hope-Simpson, proposed that the flu is not in fact spread from person to person, or pig to pig, in the normal way, but that it instead remains latent in human or swine carriers, who are scattered in large numbers throughout their communities until the virus is reactivated by an environmental trigger of some sort. Hope-Simpson further proposed that the trigger is connected to seasonal variations in solar radiation, and that it may be electromagnetic in nature, as a good many of his predecessors during the previous two centuries had suggested.
**

Firstenberg, Arthur; Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow (pp. 80-83). Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

So now you are arguing the the viruses DO exist?

Not biological ones, no. You're confusing my belief on this with that of Arthur Firstenberg's, at least at the time that he published his Invisible Rainbow book. Apparently you either didn't read or forgot about how I prefaced my quote from his book. Once more:

**
Note that the author still believes in viruses, but believes that the triggering factor is not the alleged flu virus, but rather EMFs
**

The fact that Mr. Firstenberg believed and perhaps still believes that biological viruses exist doesn't take away from the evidence he presented that in the case of the flu, EMFs apparently play the most important role in the flu disease.

 

[Scott]

this is highly suspect.

why are they afraid to isolate viruses?

what are they hiding?

It's not that they're afraid to isolate them, it's that they can't do it. They can isolate proteins, which are smaller, but for some reasons viruses elude them. The only conclusion that makes sense to me as to why is because they don't exist.

More bullshit from you.

Again with the insults -.-. I'll let this one go, but you're pushing it.

Tell us when a protein has been isolated and grown in a culture.

I never said that proteins could be "grown" in a culture. I simply said that they can be isolated or purified. Wikipedia has an article on this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_purification

Feel free to look for an equivalent process for biological viruses.