@@BiologyProfessor You can also use Rivers modifications from 1937, which has overlap with Koch's. There is no proof that any virus has been isolated--that has to be done, because a virus us still a pathogen if it exists at all--I see no proof that any virus exists--nor any proof of contagion--where's the studies? It appears that Pasteur's germ theory is incorrect, and terrain theory is correct.
A virus is an "obligate intercellular PARASITE?" In that case, would anti-parasite drugs be helpful? Or does "parasite" simply describe a mechanism similar to but not the same as an actual parasite?
It’s intracellular (replication inside cells), not intercellular (between cells). And here, we are using the basic definition of a parasite: something that lives in or on its host and steals nutrients from that host, to the benefit of the parasite and the detriment of the host. Anti-parasitic medication‘s are typically not going to work against viruses, because anti-parasitic medications are designed to treat eukaryotic parasites, like protozoans or helminthic worms. Antiviral medications are developed to target viruses specifically.
What is the point of step 4? If 1-3 are true and done correctly - and if the previously healthy unaffected host gets the disease.... is that not proof enough? What does step 4 prove BEYOND steps 1-3?
It is kind of like a double check to make sure that the bacterium you injected into the host in step 3 really did infect the host and grow and replicate to cause disease.
Well, covid 19 is a disease, and the virus that causes covid 19 is called SARS-CoV-2. @@jeneway1 Viruses won't replicate in pure culture so this particular process wouldn't apply.
@@BiologyProfessor They put Vero cells and an antibiotic in the purification process and faked finding CV 19--viruses cannot grow in culture because none exist. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IoywNPXANi4.html Andrew Kaufman M.D. - The Rooster in the River of Rats - Koch's Postulates (35 min) He shows exactly how the pandemic got started and brings the details of the studies out to view and reveals the fraud.
This video really help me but i got a question, from what i learned, isn't it better to use susceptible animals rather than healthy one since the patient that we got pathogen from might not be in healthy state too??
This is an interesting question. For the purpose of Koch's Postulates, with the goal of proving conclusively that a certain microbe causes a certain disease, it is important to use a healthy animal subject. However, I could accept the argument that, for certain microbes only capable of establishing diseases in an already unhealthy host (one with a weakened immune system, for example), that a more susceptible host with a weaker immune system might be necessary for disease symptoms to appear. This will normally not be the case though. Thanks for asking!
Mark and Scott Kelly along with Aaron Rodgers are at the center of this all. And Adam Scott was cast on Severance because of the name disguise... As for COVID, that's Aaron Rodgers' middle name
Funnily enough, all of these pronunciations are wrong, but don't bother trying to pronounce it right cause it's a germanic sound which is way too hard to pronounce for English speakers. Same as van Gogh, it's simply too weird of a sound for people who don't speak a germanic language.
Really liked this video it really helped! Thank you! I have a question though - With the problems of Koch's postulates you mentioned meaning it can't be used to establish this casual relationship, is there a newer model that we follow instead? Or is Koch's postulates still used but "with a pinch of salt"?
There are new kinds of evidence, like PCR tests. When thousands of people test positive for a specific sequence of viral DNA, and the transmission chain from person to person can be observed, and treatments for that virus that work in vitro also work in patients, it’s pretty clear what’s going on.
@@BiologyProfessor Not completely though, I found an interview of Kary Mullis in which he said that testing with PRC doesnt mean the thing you are testing for made you sick or will hurt you per definition. its just an amplification of molocules, and if you amplicate the right ones often enough you can find almost any common strain of bacteria or virus. Even when those virusses are already dead we still carry "prints" on our genomes and/or DNA. So basically high infection rates depend on how many cycles of amplification you use. So in his words, you cant mis use PCR, you can only interpet it wrong.
It’s true that it could be interpreted incorrectly. That’s why it is only one type of evidence to be used. Using epidemiology to track transmission structure, using animal models to do infection studies, using PCR on people with and without symptoms, etc. all give a fuller picture of Disease.
It is not Really.... it is unethical to inject a patient something without taking consent or giving them enough info about the injection. it is unethical to talk about patients privacy outside the working premise. but it is not unethical to inject an animal with pathogens in my eyes, because first of all, it does not the brain capacity or self consciousnesses to be aware of what is actually happening. You might argue, "But what if there is a human in a coma, they dont have the brain Capacity or self Consciousness". And to that is say, but that is not the default state of a normal human beings. Humans are classified as Animals but we are the superior to other Animals due to our Brain, and we cannot treat both the same. Therefore, we do have to respect a human's decision and privacy, and we should not treat animals in the same way. I do agree that animal testing is bad, but that is "Empathy" and not "Ethics". Ethics is simply a set of rules that separates the right from the wrong. And animal testing according to Ethics is not wrong if you really thing about it.
@@chickstar69duplicity35 That _really_ doesn't make any sense. At all. Ever. Could you please elaborate on how you came to hypothesis that bit of learned wisdom? Oh, and use more emojis next time! They really accentuate the height of your intellect! Wow oh wow, we're dealing with a Grand Master over here!!!
@@chickstar69duplicity35 You're completely right, I meant to write 'hypothesize'. Now, with your inability to capitalize, or to even utilize basic punctuation skills, we'll call it even. 😉
