Koch’s Postulates and the Great Asymptomatic Escape

“Even Koch had to modify or bend the strictest interpretation of the first postulate. Koch discovered asymptomatic carriers of Vibrio cholera and Salmonella typhi, yielding the important distinction between asymptomatic clinical colonization and infection. Thus the field of inquiry into the intricate host-pathogen relationship was born.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3775492/

There has been quite a bit of debate between those who challenge the “virus” narrative and those who defend it as to whether or not Koch’s Postulates should be applied to virology. For those who are unfamiliar, in the late 1800’s German scientist Robert Koch presented four logic-based criteria that he felt needed to be met in order to establish any microorganism as a pathogenic agent capable of causing disease. The four Postulates were laid out as such:

  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 reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_postulates

Since their introduction in the late 1800’s, the debate has raged over whether or not the Postulates remain relevant and necessary, especially in regard to virology. At the time that Koch developed his Postulates, “viruses” were yet to be dreamt up and the study of bacterial causes of disease was in its infancy. The Germ theory of disease had only recently become a concept laid forth by Louis Pasteur and Koch’s Postulates were an expansion of this theory based upon the idea of there being only one pathogen for one disease. These criteria became the benchmark for the steps that needed to be fulfilled in order to prove a causal relationship between microbe and disease:

“Koch’s postulates: In 1890 the German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out his celebrated criteria for judging whether a given bacteria is the cause of a given disease. Koch’s criteria brought some much-needed scientific clarity to what was then a very confused field.”

https://www.medicinenet.com/kochs_postulates/definition.htm

However, after a few decades of attempts by various researchers, it eventually became apparent that it was impossible to link every disease to a specific bacteria. This inability to find a bacterial cause in all diseases led to the creation of the concept of something smaller than bacteria floating within the diseased host. These invisible pathogens were unable to be detected by light microscopy and were assumed to be present within the fluids based on the results of various indirect measurements. Upon the introduction of this concept, “viruses” seemingly began to pop up everywhere in the early 20th century and quickly became associated with many diseases. Nevertheless, there was a problem with trying to prove “viruses” as the causal agent of a particular disease: it was impossible to do so by satisfying the required logic-based criteria as laid forth by Robert Koch. This was (in)famously proclaimed in 1937 by leading virologist Thomas Rivers:

“It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.”

-Thomas Rivers

Others have more recently claimed that Koch’s Postulates are severely limited and that they can not be satisfied for “viruses.” From virologist Vincent Racaniello:

“Despite the importance of Koch’s postulates in the development of microbiology, they have severe limitations, which even Koch realized. For example, he believed that cholera and leprosy were caused by microbes, but could not fulfill all four postulates. Furthermore, Koch knew that the putative agent of cholera, Vibrio cholerae, could be isolated from both sick and healthy people, invalidating postulate #2.

The limitations of Koch’s criteria are even more obvious when we consider viral diseases, which were not yet discovered when the postulates were formulated.”

https://www.virology.ws/2010/01/22/kochs-postulates-in-the-21st-century

Dr. John V. Williams, author of a 2010 article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, discussed how Koch’s Postulates had to be revised numerous times as they are challenging (i.e. impossible) to satisfy for “viruses:”

Déjà Vu All Over Again: Koch’s Postulates and Virology in the 21st Century

“Koch espoused his core principles regarding the proof of an etiologic role for a potential pathogen in 1884. These postulates were revised by the eminent virologist Thomas Rivers in 1937 to reflect the biology of viruses, which, as obligate intracellular parasites, cannot be isolated in pure culture [37]. Huebner [38] further modified these principles in 1957, during the heyday of virus discovery that followed the development of tissue and cell culture. Fredricks and Relman [39] eloquently applied these guidelines to sequence-based microbe discovery. There are numerous challenges in proving viruses as the etiologic causes of specific syndromes: prolonged viral shedding after acute illness (eg, enteroviruses); latent infection and asymptomatic shedding (eg, herpesviruses); clinical disease in a minority of infected individuals (eg, poliovirus); and recurrent asymptomatic infection of immune adults (eg, respiratory syncytial virus) are but a few of these challenges.”

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/201/11/1611/850388

A Reuters “Fact Check” went so far as to claim that Koch’s Postulates do not need to be satisfied for “viruses:”

Fact Check-Koch’s postulates do not need to be fulfilled to prove the existence of a virus

“VERDICT False. Koch’s postulates, as they were originally understood, do not need to be demonstrated in order to establish that a microbe causes a disease. SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 and has been shown to do so by modern standards, including criteria modelled on Koch’s postulates, as well as genetic techniques that were not developed until decades after Koch’s death.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-koch/fact-check-kochs-postulates-do-not-need-to-be-fulfilled-to-prove-the-existence-of-a-virus-idUSL2N2L23F1

Why Koch’s Postulates Can Not Be Fulfilled

Fill in the blank: Excuses are like ________, everybody’s got one!

The excuses for why Koch’s Postulates have not been or can not be fulfilled are far and wide, as shown in the above examples. While the excuses are many, there are three main points that people who defend virology’s inability to satisfy Koch’s logical rules regularly cling to:

1. Robert Koch developed his criteria specifically for bacteria as “viruses” were unknown at the time.

According to those who use the first excuse, Koch’s Postulates can only apply to bacteria and not “viruses” thus one can not use Koch’s Postulates to critique virology. However, the Postulates were not written specifically for bacteria but for all potential pathogenic agents. In fact, if we are being nitpicky, Koch referred to parasites and not bacteria when he laid out the Postulates in front of the Tenth International Congress of Medicine in Berlin in 1890:

“However, if it can be proved: first that the parasite occurs in every case of the disease in question, and under circumstances which can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease; secondly, that it occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite; and thirdly, that it, after being fully isolated from the body and repeatedly grown in pure culture, can induce the disease anew; then the occurrence of the parasite in the disease can no longer be accidental, but in this case no other relation between it and the disease except that the parasite is the cause of the disease can be considered.”

-Robert Koch

In any case, the Postulates are logic-based rules rather than established scientific laws. The late researcher David Crowe summed it up brilliantly:

“It is very important to note that these are logical postulates, not scientific laws. They are, in other words, just simple, straightforward, every day logic. Koch’s brilliance was putting them into simple words and forcing those who promoted infectious disease theories (most of which were wrong) into a corner. Fulfill these simple logical postulates, or go home.”

-David Crowe

https://web.archive.org/web/20200126231239/http://theinfectiousmyth.com/viruses.php

2. Unlike bacteria, “viruses” can not be grown in a pure culture and thus Postulate #2 can not be satisfied.

Awkward…

Those who throw about the second excuse state that “viruses” need a host cell in order to replicate and thus can not be grown in a pure state (i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign elements). Going back to the Reuter’s “fact check” from before, they state:

“Viruses cannot reproduce themselves, and so cannot be grown at all as a ‘pure culture’ as Koch would have envisioned it.”

-Reuters

This is a fundamental problem virology runs into over and over again. Unlike “viruses,” bacteria can be seen with regular microscopes and they can be purified and isolated and thus proven to exist. “Viruses” can not be seen using regular microscopes and can not be properly purified and isolated. As “viruses” can not be purified and isolated, there is no DIRECT proof that these entities exist in the first place. Researchers can vary and manipulate bacteria in order to figure out the conditions for which they grow in. They can not do so for “viruses” and thus, they can not claim to know how to grow an invisible “virus” without first establishing that the “virus” exists either in nature or in the fluids of a sick host. Researchers can not just make up the rules for how to grow an imaginary entity and then claim that this is why Koch’s Postulates are invalid. The inability to fulfill Postulate #2 would be further proof that Koch’s Postulates do indeed work as a failsafe against anyone attempting to create a fictional pathogen out of thin air. The pathogen in question must be shown to exist in a purified and isolated state first.

3. Robert Koch knew the limitations of his own postulates as he found asymptomatic carriers of bacteria and could not fulfill some of his postulates for bacterial disease.

The third excuse often provided is the one I want to focus on in-depth. Interestingly, it contradicts anyone using the first excuse by claiming that Koch could not satisfy his own criteria for bacteria as he found asymptomatic carriers of Cholera. Specifically, it is stated that Postulate 1 was disproven by Koch’s own experiments with Cholera as, according to this Postulate, the microbe was only supposed to be found within sick hosts and not in those who are healthy. However, this was obviously not the case:

“Koch abandoned the requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera and, later, of typhoid fever. Asymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially viruses such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV, and hepatitis C. Specifically, all doctors and virologists agree that the poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.”

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/10%3A_Epidemiology/10.1%3A_Principles_of_Epidemiology/10.1E%3A_Exceptions_to_Kochs_Postulates

As can be seen, finding asymptomatic carriers of bacteria clearly defies Koch’s first Postulate. However, even though it is claimed Robert Koch abandoned his first Postulate, he never revised his own criteria by rewriting them in order to fit his asymptomatic findings. Perhaps this is because, deep down, Koch knew that his Postulates worked as originally devised. If one were to look at this issue logically, one would see that Koch actually proved his Postulates work by disproving the notion that bacteria are the cause of disease. As Koch rightfully pointed out, the disease-causing bacteria should not be found in healthy individuals yet they are regularly found within such hosts. This contradictory finding led to the creation of the concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease as an escape clause for failing to fulfill the very first postulate. This idea of a healthy diseased person is an oxymoron, as asymptomatic carriers as defined by Merriam-Webster, are those who are “not causing, marked by, or presenting with signs or symptoms of infection, illness, or disease.” Even the CDC agreed that asymptomatic people are not carriers of disease as their language was updated to show that those labeled as such are in fact “healthy people:”

“The agency, which directed CNBC to HHS for comment, also added new language referring to asymptomatic individuals as “healthy people,” language that’s frequently used in social media posts protesting the use of masks.

“In areas where there are limited number of new cases, State or local public health officials may request to test a small number of asymptomatic ‘healthy people,’ particularly from vulnerable populations,” the new guidance reads.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/26/cdc-quietly-revises-coronavirus-guidance-to-downplay-importance-of-testing-for-asymptomatic-people.html

As Koch found the bacteria he believed to be the cause of disease in hosts that were entirely healthy, these bacteria could not possibly be the cause of disease. This obviously created a bit of a conundrum for Koch as, if he admitted that these bacteria were not the pathogenic agents he believed them to be, his earlier research “proving” bacterial causes of disease would be discredited by his findings and the results would be damaging to the emerging germ theory. Koch would lose all prestige as well as any chance at an eventual Nobel Prize. When presented with this fork in the road, Koch had two options. He could either:

A) Admit that he was on the wrong track with his research into finding one pathogen for one disease.

B) Abandon his own logic and allow for the acceptance of the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease.

While he never reworked his Postulates, we do know that Koch bent his own rules in numerous instances like a dirty cop trying desperately to pin the crime on an innocent person. His most egregious deviation of his own logical criteria was the creation of and the allowance for the asymptomatic carrier of disease. This clearly negates the very first requirement needed to be satisfied and immediately nullifies the rest of the Postulates as the process should end at the very first step. The impact of this decision to create illogical concepts used to skirt around simple logic can clearly be felt today with the current insanity regarding asymptomatic carriers of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though the vast majority of the positive fraudulent PCR results occurred in healthy people, these individuals were treated as if they were infectious and subsequently quarantined as if they had been slapped with the scarlet letter. We have become a society that fears anyone, regardless of whether they are sick or not, based upon the dishonest white-washing of a man trapped by his own logic.

This ridiculous concept of healthy carriers of pathogenic entities extends far beyond “viruses” and the few discovered instances credited to Koch. The asymptomatic carrier is a major aspect of many of the diseases claimed to be caused by bacteria. In fact, the case could be made that none of the major bacterial diseases have ever fulfilled the very first of Koch’s Postulates as they all result in a majority of asymptomatic cases. Thus Koch’s Postulates, as originally laid forth, have never been satisfied for bacteria either. Presented below are sources detailing 10 major bacterial diseases (including cholera) which are made up of mostly asymptomatic carriers.

The Major Bacterial Diseases Are All Asymptomatic

Tuberculosis

With tuberculosis, it is said that 90% of the cases where the bacteria is detected are asymptomatic. Only 10% of the cases ever progress to symptoms of disease and of those, only half succumb to the disease. In other words, nearly all TB cases are in fact regular healthy people:

“Around 10% of latent infections progress to active disease which, if left untreated, kill about half of those affected.[1] Typical symptoms of active TB are chronic cough with blood-containing mucusfevernight sweats, and weight loss.[1]”

“About 90% of those infected with M. tuberculosis have asymptomatic, latent TB infections (sometimes called LTBI),[57] with only a 10% lifetime chance that the latent infection will progress to overt, active tuberculous disease.[58]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

While I hate using Wikipedia as a source, the information they provided was well-sourced and came directly from a 2020 document by the WHO:

“About one-quarter of the world’s population has a TB infection, which means people have been infected by TB bacteria but are not (yet) ill with the disease and cannot transmit it.

People infected with TB bacteria have a 5–10% lifetime risk of falling ill with TB. Those with compromised immune systems, such as people living with HIV, malnutrition or diabetes, or people who use tobacco, have a higher risk of falling ill.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosis

This information was also backed up by the CDC:

“If another person inhales air containing these droplet nuclei, he or she may become infected. However, not everyone infected with TB bacteria becomes sick. As a result, two TB-related conditions exist: latent TB infection and TB disease.

What is Latent TB Infection?

Persons with latent TB infection do not feel sick and do not have any symptoms. They are infected with M. tuberculosis, but do not have TB disease. The only sign of TB infection is a positive reaction to the tuberculin skin test or TB blood test. Persons with latent TB infection are not infectious and cannot spread TB infection to others.

Overall, without treatment, about 5 to 10% of infected persons will develop TB disease at some time in their lives. About half of those people who develop TB will do so within the first two years of infection. For persons whose immune systems are weak, especially those with HIV infection, the risk of developing TB disease is considerably higher than for persons with normal immune systems.”

https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/general/ltbiandactivetb.htm

Salmonella

This is one of the bacterial diseases that Koch supposedly found asymptomatic carriers in which had him bending his own rules. It is claimed that the asymptomatic state is a main feature of the disease as the majority of those who have the bacteria remain without disease (quite the backwards logic). At least 25% have no history of being around a typhoid case:

“Typhoid (enteric fever) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, causing over 21 million new infections annually, with the majority of deaths occurring in young children. As typhoid fever-causing Salmonella have no known environmental reservoir, the chronic, asymptomatic carrier state is thought to be a key feature of continued maintenance of the bacterium within human populations.”

“Although the precise role of chronic carriers in disease transmission remains unclear, these asymptomatic carriers presumably act as reservoirs for a diverse range of S. Typhi strains and may act as a breeding ground for new genotypes [12].”

“Epidemiological studies are complicated by the fact that the majority of chronic carriers in endemic settings are asymptomatic [35], and up to 25% have no clinical history of typhoid [36].”

“Detection of carriers poses a difficult challenge since up to 25% of these individuals do not recall a history of typhoid [36] and currently available diagnostic assays are limited.”

“Asymptomatic, chronic gallbladder carriers of S. Typhi have been recognized for over a century, the most famous of these being Typhoid Mary, who was the subject of one of the first true epidemiological investigations of an infectious disease.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252485/

It is stated that the asymptomatic carriers are responsible for much of the transmission for decades through their stools, thus apparently creating more asymptomatic carriers:

“Chronic carriers are responsible for much of the transmission of the organism. While asymptomatic, they may continue to shed bacteria in their stool for decades. The organisms sequester themselves either as a biofilm on gallstones or gallbladder epithelium or, perhaps, intracellularly, within the epithelium itself. [7] The bacteria excreted by a single carrier may have multiple genotypes, making it difficult to trace an outbreak to its origin. [8]”

https://web.archive.org/web/20210419064937/https://www.medscape.com/answers/231135-10572/how-long-does-salmonella-typhi-s-typhi-survive-in-asymptomatic-carriers

H. Pylori

H. Pylori, commonly associated with gastric problems and stomach cancer, is another bacterial disease that is said to be asymptomatic for the most part:

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

“Usually asymptomatic, but H. pylori is the major cause of peptic ulcer disease and gastritis worldwide, which often present as gnawing or burning epigastric pain. Less commonly, symptoms include nausea, vomiting, or loss of appetite.”

TREATMENT

“Asymptomatic infections do not need to be treated. Patients with active duodenal or gastric ulcers should be treated if they are infected.”

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2020/travel-related-infectious-diseases/helicobacter-pylori

Over half the population of the world are said to have the bacteria present within them, with more than two-thirds of the population (67.7%) being asymptomatic according to one study:

“Helicobacter pylori infection is present in more than 50% of the world’s population. The estimated life time risk of peptic ulcer disease is 20 percent and of gastric cancer is 1–2 percent.”

“In this study, the prevalence of H. pylori infection in asymptomatic population was 67.7%, which is comparable with data from other studies.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174827/

Cholera

As previously discussed, cholera is the first of the bacteria studied in which Koch discovered asymptomatic carriers. Like the other bacterial diseases listed above, most of the cases are asymptomatic:

Nature of the disease

“An acute enteric disease varying in severity. Most infections are asymptomatic (i.e. do not cause any illness). In mild cases, acute watery diarrhoea occurs without other symptoms. In severe cases, there is sudden onset of profuse watery diarrhoea with nausea and vomiting and rapid development of dehydration. In severe untreated cases, death may occur within a few hours due to dehydration leading to circulatory collapse.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20180829170251/http://www.who.int/ith/diseases/cho/en/

It is further reiterated in this next source that most cholera cases are asymptomatic, with only 1 in 20 ever having symptoms of disease:

“Cholera infection is most often asymptomatic or results in mild gastroenteritis. Approximately one in 20 people will have severe disease, with profuse painless, watery diarrhoea described as ‘rice water stools’ and vomiting leading to rapid volume depletion.”

https://www.health.vic.gov.au/infectious-diseases/cholera

Syphilis

With syphilis, there is the “latent” stage where the bacteria remains within the system yet produces no symptoms whatsoever. This asymptomatic period is said to last anywhere from a few years on up to the rest of the person’s life:

Latent Stage

“The latent (hidden) stage of syphilis is a period when there are no visible signs or symptoms of syphilis. Without treatment, syphilis will remain in the body even though there are no signs or symptoms. Early latent syphilis is latent syphilis where infection occurs within the past 12 months. Late latent syphilis is latent syphilis where infection occurs more than 12 months ago. Latent syphilis of unknown duration is when there is not enough evidence to confirm initial infection was within the previous 12 months. Latent syphilis can last for years.”

https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-syphilis-detailed.htm#:~:text=The%20latent%20(hidden)%20stage%20of,within%20the%20past%2012%20months.

Here it is stated that at least half of those diagnosed with syphilis are asymptomatic.

“Syphilis is termed the “great imitator”, as symptoms are often non-specific or mimic other infectious or immune mediated conditions, e.g, the rash seen in secondary syphilis may resemble pityriasis rosea. Approximately 50% of people with syphilis are asymptomatic.”

“Approximately one-third of untreated people will develop tertiary syphilis. This stage occurs after a latent period, when infection is identifiable on serological testing but the patient does not have symptoms or signs. The tertiary stage usually appears within three to ten years after syphilis was first acquired, although it can appear up to 40 years later.”

https://bpac.org.nz/BT/2012/June/06_syphilis.aspx

As can be seen from this source, latent syphilis is detected by antibody results and can remain “latent” permanently:

“Latent syphilis can be early (< 1 year after infection) or late (≥ 1 year after infection).

Symptoms and signs are absent, but antibodies, detected by serologic tests for syphilis (STS), persist. Because symptoms of primary and secondary syphilis are often minimal or ignored, patients frequently are first diagnosed during the latent stage when routine blood tests for syphilis are done.

Syphilis may remain latent permanently, but relapses with contagious skin or mucosal lesions may occur during the early latent period.”

https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/infectious-diseases/sexually-transmitted-infections-stis/syphilis

Gonorrhea

According to the CDC, the majority of the cases of gonorrhea are asymptomatic, including many cases in men and most of the cases in women. They attempt to claim women who are asymptomatic are at risk of complications from the “infection” even though they are disease-free:

“Gonorrhea is a very common infectious disease. CDC estimates that approximately 1.6 million new gonococcal infections occurred in the United States in 2018, and more than half occur among young people aged 15-24.1 Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the United States.2  However, many infections are asymptomatic, so reported cases only capture a fraction of the true burden.”

“Many men with gonorrhea are asymptomatic 34. When present, signs and symptoms of urethral infection in men include dysuria or a white, yellow, or green urethral discharge that usually appears one to fourteen days after infection 5. In cases where urethral infection is complicated by epididymitis, men with gonorrhea may also complain of testicular or scrotal pain.

Most women with gonorrhea are asymptomatic 67. Even when a woman has symptoms, they are often so mild and nonspecific that they are mistaken for a bladder or vaginal infection 89. The initial symptoms and signs in women include dysuria, increased vaginal discharge, or vaginal bleeding between periods. Women with gonorrhea are at risk of developing serious complications from the infection, regardless of the presence or severity of symptoms.”

https://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/stdfact-gonorrhea-detailed.htm

This source reiterates that gonorrhea “infections” are mostly asymptomatic:

“Sometimes, there are no symptoms. Many people with gonorrhea are asymptomatic, which means they don’t show any symptoms of infection.

If there are symptoms, they typically show in two days to five days in males, with a possible range of one to 30 days. In females, symptoms develop within 10 days of infection.

Possible symptoms in males:

  • Yellowish-white discharge from the penis
  • Burning or pain when urinating
  • Urinating more often than usual
  • Pain or swelling of the testicles

Women are usually asymptomatic, but might experience:

  • Abnormal discharge from the vagina that is yellow and sometimes bloody.
  • Burning or pain when urinating

Pertussis

Cases of the pertussis bacterium, associated with the whopping cough condition that is commonly vaccinated against in children with the DTaP injection, is also said to be mostly asymptomatic:

“A new study by Boston University School of Public Health and the University of Georgia’s Odum School of Ecology presents evidence that could help explain this resurgence: asymptomatic individuals. Lots of them.

Published in the journal eLife, the study suggests that most adults and many children who contract pertussis display no symptoms at all—a reversal of what many experts have long believed about an infection that can cause months of violent coughing fits and “whooping” sounds.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.uga.edu/asymptomatic-pertussis-more-common-than-thought/amp/

This source backs up the statement by claiming asymptomatic pertussis infections are common in school children and that these cases are more prevalent than previously thought:

“Background: Studies have documented that older children and adolescents act as a reservoir of Bordetella pertussis infection for young infants who have not yet completed their primary immunization schedule. Asymptomatic pertussis infection has been reported during outbreaks.”

“Conclusions: Our results indicate that asymptomatic B. pertussis infections are common in school children in China, and asymptomatic B. parapertussis infections are more prevalent than previously documented.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/00365548.2013.878034?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Tetanus

Tetanus infections are also said to mostly be asymptomatic. Only a small proportion of those “infected” ever experience any symptoms:

“What are the signs and symptoms of tetanus in humans? Typically, illness is asymptomatic or mild in the vast majority of infected persons, with a small proportion experiencing severe disease. The incubation period (interval from infection to onset of symptoms) ranges from 7-10 days.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/TetanusFAQ_20170601.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiegoupxb_6AhWfkYkEHRHQCsAQFnoECAUQBg&usg=AOvVaw2vKVwVfJyyhKYcgzAt8rcC

E. Coli

E. Coli is a bacterium that is often associated with gastrointestinal problems even though it is found in the intestines of healthy warm-blooded organisms. In fact, most strains are considered harmless and even in those that are considered harmful, asymptomatic cases occur regularly:

“Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a bacteria that is commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded organisms. Most E.coli strains are harmless, but some can cause serious food poisoning.”

“An asymptomatic carrier state has been reported, where individuals show no clinical signs of disease but are capable of infecting others. The duration of excretion of STEC is about 1 week or less in adults but can be longer in children.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/e-coli

This source states that the majority of infections are asymptomatic:

“The majority of foodborne Escherichia coli infections are asymptomatic or mild and self-limited. In clinically apparent cases, most patients respond to supportive therapy, with average recovery of 2 to 5 days. The majority of deaths in the developing world are associated with volume depletion as a result of profound diarrhea and inadequate access to oral rehydration therapies.”

https://online.epocrates.com/diseases/110551/Foodborne-E-coli-infection/Overview

Chlamydia

Finally, we come to chlamydia, the most commonly reported bacterial STD in the US. It is known as the “silent STD” as the vast majority of the cases are…you guessed it…asymptomatic! According to the CDC, it is difficult to count the cases as most people are unaware they even have the bacteria in them as they have no symptoms of disease and thus, they do not seek out testing. If they do have exams, those “infected” do not present with abnormal physical findings. Based upon modeling studies, only 10% of men and as low as 5% of women ever experience any symptoms at all:

“CDC estimates that there were four million chlamydial infections in 2018. Chlamydia is also the most frequently reported bacterial sexually transmitted infection in the United States. It is difficult to account for many cases of chlamydia. Most people with the infection have no symptoms and do not seek testing.”

“Some refer to chlamydia as a “silent” infection. This is because most people with the infection have no symptoms or abnormal physical exam findings. Studies find that the proportion of people with chlamydia who develop symptoms vary by setting and study methodology. Two modeling studies estimate that about 10% of men and 5-30% of women with a confirmed infection develop symptoms.”

https://www.cdc.gov/std/chlamydia/stdfact-chlamydia-detailed.htm

This second source contradicts the CDC’s asymptomatic estimates somewhat stating 75% of females and 50% of males present no symptoms. Whatever the numbers truly are, it goes to show that the bulk of the cases of the most common bacterial STD are found in entirely healthy people:

“Chlamydia is the most frequently reported and most common bacterial sexually transmitted disease (STD) in the United States, with more than 2.8 million cases occurring annually, mainly among those aged 15-24. Most chlamydial infections are asymptomatic, with up to 75% of females and 50% of males exhibiting no symptoms. As such, most cases remain undiagnosed.”

https://www.clinicaladvisor.com/home/features/chlamydia-diagnosing-the-hidden-std/

Anyone looking at all of this logically can see that bacteria do not cause disease. The ones which are blamed are found most of the time in entirely healthy people. Thus, none of the above listed bacterial diseases can ever satisfy Koch’s first Postulate. This inability to prove pathogenic bacteria makes sense when we look at the definition of what a bacteria actually is in regards to our bodies and the ecosystem. According to Genome.gov:

“Bacteria are small single-celled organisms. Bacteria are found almost everywhere on Earth and are vital to the planet’s ecosystems. Some species can live under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure. The human body is full of bacteria, and in fact is estimated to contain more bacterial cells than human cells. Most bacteria in the body are harmless, and some are even helpful. A relatively small number of species cause disease.”

Bacteria are considered vital to our ecosystem as well as to our gut biome. Most are harmless and some are even helpful. The relatively few that are deemed harmful obviously have not been proven to be as they are regularly found in healthy individuals. Our bodies have all sorts of bacteria in abundance inside of us at all times. These bacteria are considered essential to our health. They have a purpose:

“They are essential to your health,” says Prof Ruth Ley, the director of the department of microbiome science at the Max Planck Institute, “your body isn’t just you”.

No matter how well you wash, nearly every nook and cranny of your body is covered in microscopic creatures.

This includes bacteria, viruses, fungi and archaea (organisms originally misclassified as bacteria). The greatest concentration of this microscopic life is in the dark murky depths of our oxygen-deprived bowels.

Prof Rob Knight, from University of California San Diego, told the BBC: “You’re more microbe than you are human.”

Originally it was thought our cells were outnumbered 10 to one.

“That’s been refined much closer to one-to-one, so the current estimate is you’re about 43% human if you’re counting up all the cells,” he says.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-43674270

It is claimed that we have anywhere from 30 to 50 trillion bacteria living inside of us working to keep us healthy. It is also said that there are 380 trillion “viruses” within us as well. Thus, we are considered more microbe than human:

“The Weizmann scientists redid the estimate and found that there were about 39 trillion bacterial cells in the body. They also estimated the number of human cells in the body, about 84% of which are red blood cells, finding there to be about 30 trillion human cells in the body.

While this results in about 1.3 bacterial cell per human cell, the numbers may vary significantly from person to person and could change significantly with each defecation. They estimate that the range of bacterial cells goes from about 30 to 50 trillion in each individual. Women may also have a higher ratio of bacterial cells than human cells because they have fewer human cells, specifically red blood cells.”

https://www.microbiomeinstitute.org/blog/2016/1/20/how-many-bacterial-vs-human-cells-are-in-the-body
Koch looking in a microscope in 1900 trying to find his lost logic.

It should come as no surprise then that all kinds of bacteria are regularly found within healthy people. Just because these same bacteria are found in sick people does not make the bacteria the cause of the symptoms of disease one is experiencing. This would have been discovered for all bacterial diseases if the proper control experiments were performed and interpreted honestly. For instance, if Koch had performed proper controls, he would have found the Mycobacterium tuberculosis in those who are healthy as well as those who are sick. If he was honest with himself, he would have realized that the Mycobacterium tuberculosis was not the causative agent he was looking for and his investigation into the bacterium as the cause would have ended after being unable to fulfill his first logic-based Postulate. If Koch had any doubts left and still felt bacteria were potentially the cause of disease, his inability to fulfill his Postulates for Cholera should have sealed the deal and ended this idea. Koch not only found asymptomatic carriers of Cholera, he was also unable to make any animals sick using the bacteria, thus failing to satisfy his 3rd and 4th Postulate as well as his 1st one:

The greatest steps towards the discovery of Vibrio cholerae

“It was in his dispatch on 7 January 1884 that Koch admitted that, despite his success in isolating the bacillus in pure culture, he had failed to reproduce the disease in animals, reasoning correctly that they are not susceptible, but renouncing one of the elements of proof that he had himself fixed in his research, later known as Koch’s postulates, which provided a framework for proving the role of microorganisms in disease.”

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(14)60855-7/fulltext

After his unsuccessful attempts in infecting animals and recreating the Cholera disease, Koch tried to infect himself with unconvincing results. His negative findings were used by his critics to ridicule him:

Lessons from cholera & Vibrio cholerae

“Fearing that the epidemic might move further and take a grip over Europe, the German government sent a medical team to Egypt which included the German scientist Robert Koch. By the time Koch and his colleagues started their investigation in Alexandria (Egypt), the epidemic started subsiding. This prompted Koch to travel to Calcutta (now Kolkata, India) where the epidemic was still continuing. Investigations carried out with cholera patients led him to identify the comma shaped cholera bacillus (Vibrio cholerae, later on named as Vibrio cholerae Pacini 1854) as the causative agent of the disease4. In an announcement made in 1884, he also claimed the isolation of the organism in pure cultures from the stool of cholera patients, while it was absent in the stool samples from cases with diarrhoea unrelated to cholera. These observations were in conformity with two of the four postulates (known as “Koch’s postulates”) formulated by Koch himself in 1882 to establish the microbial aetiology of infectious diseases5. In order to fulfill the criteria laid down in the remaining two of his postulates, Koch tried to infect animals with pure cultures of the organism with little success. He rightly concluded that the animals were not susceptible to cholera and took recourse to the extreme step of infecting himself by drinking pure cultures. However, he came down with only a mild episode of diarrhoea, an outcome which was later on exploited by his opponents to ridicule him.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3089047/

Even after the negative results, we can see that Koch tried to convince himself that the Vibrio cholerae was guilty by association…even when there was no bacteria to be found in order for the association to be made:

On the current status of bacteriological cholera diagnosis

“This is not to say, however, that conversely the absence or rather the non-detection of cholera bacteria in a case suspected of having cholera proves the absence of cholera under all circumstances. Just as with other infectious diseases caused by microorganisms, there can also be isolated cases of cholera which, because of their behavior in other respects, must be regarded as indubitable cases of cholera, but in which cases, either because the investigator is insufficiently qualified or because they were examined at an unsuitable point in time are, the cholera bacteria are not found.”

As for finding the bacteria in cases without disease, Koch assumed that these people had to have been infected due to their contact with “infected” individuals and thus were “real cases” of Cholera:

“These mildest cases of cholera, in which cholera bacteria have been found in the solid deposits of apparently healthy people, occur only among groups of people who have been equally exposed to the infection and who show severe cases as well as the mild ones. Nothing of the kind has ever been found in persons who could not possibly have been infected. One must therefore regard these cases as real cases of cholera and cannot use them as evidence against the specific character of the cholera bacteria.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02284324

It is abundantly clear that Koch could not fulfill any part of his first Postulate as there were cases where the Vibrio cholerae was found in healthy individuals as well as cases where it was not found in those who were unhealthy with the associated symptoms. Despite growing the Vibrio cholerae in a pure culture and isolating it, Koch could not reproduce the disease in experimental animals nor within himself. Thus, the only Postulate Koch could claim to have fulfilled was #2 as he failed to satisfy the rest. Logically, this should have shown Koch that the Vibrio cholerae was not the cause of the symptoms associated with Cholera and it should have led him to look for other potential factors that could produce these symptoms. Unfortunately, he did not and instead created illogical concepts to cover up for the failure to fulfill his own logic.

By Koch side-stepping his very first Postulate in order to allow for the inclusion of asymptomatic carriers, he opened the doors for future researchers to sidestep either some or all of his Postulates in order to still claim that the investigated microbe, whether bacteria, “virus,” or something else entirely, was the true cause of disease even if none of the Postulates were satisfied. This changing the rules of logic is seen regularly in bacterial investigations as highlighted by chapter 8 of the Taxonomic Guide to Infectious Diseases (Second Edition):

Changing how we think about infectious diseases

“As previously discussed, lots of pathogenic organisms are found in healthy animals, producing disease in only a tiny fraction of the individuals who are infected. For example, Bartonella species can live in blood without causing disease, producing an asymptomatic bacteremia in the wide assortment of animals that they may infect.”

“Many pathogens do not grow in nutrient medium culture. This applies generally to common Mollicute bacteria, including Erysipelothrix, Mycoplasma, and Ureoplasma. This would also apply to viruses, none of which grow in cell-free media. Paradoxically, some of the organisms known to produce bacteremias in human blood grow very poorly in blood cultures, and this would include the aforementioned Bartonella species and the HACEK organisms [1, 3].”

“Again, some of the worst microorganisms will not produce disease in healthy animals. To confuse matters further, we now have examples of nonliving agents that will produce transmissible disease in healthy animals (prions).”

“Many infections, considered the underlying cause of a disease, are absent from the lesions that ultimately develop. For example, Group A streptococcus infection is considered to be the underlying cause of rheumatic fever. The infection is long gone prior to the appearance of the valvular and endocardial lesions of rheumatic fever.”

“Particularly noteworthy, in the case of Whipple disease, is that Koch’s postulates never came close to being satisfied. For the experimentalist, the most important of Koch’s postulates require the extraction of the organism from a lesion (i.e., from diseased, infected tissue), the isolation and culture of the organism in the laboratory, and the consistent reproduction of the lesion in an animal injected with the organism. In the case of Whipple disease, none of these criteria were satisfied. The consistent identification in Whipple disease tissue of a particular molecule, characteristic of a particular species of bacteria, was deemed sufficient to establish the infectious origin of the disease.”

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817576-7.00008-0

The rules were bent and broken in many, if not all, instances of bacterial research in order to claim a certain bacterium is a cause of disease, even in face of overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. Once the widely accepted criteria were trampled on, this same practice of abandoning logic and reason was easily transferred over into “viral” research:

Birth of the field of virology confirmed the inadequacy of a stringent adherence to the criteria postulated by Koch. Determination of causality had to be relaxed to accommodate asymptomatic carriage as well as the complexity of recovering these infectious agents and successfully demonstrating infection in animal models. Further evidence of causality was gleaned from use of serologic criteria whereby appearance of antibodies against the proposed pathogenic virus could corroborate its role in disease aetiology and was indeed instrumental, for instance, in elucidating the role of Epstein-Barr virus in causing infectious mononucleosis.

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(16)30048-9/fulltext

It should be crystal clear now that Koch’s Postulates, as originally devised, worked properly and effectively by disproving bacteria as a causative agent in disease. We also know that “viruses” have never come close to fulfilling them either. The Postulates worked so well that the researchers had to create illogical concepts such as asymptomatic disease as well as antibodies and the immune system in order to cover up their inability to satisfy them. The “scientific” fields are left in this odd catch-22 as they have all but abandoned and rejected the Postulates while still admitting that they are absolutely essential requirements that must be fulfilled. Thus, we are left with a very important question:

Are Koch’s Postulates Necessary?

The answer to this is simple: Yes…and no. The reason Koch’s Postulates are necessary is because they are the minimal logical requirements that should be met in order to prove any microbe, whether bacteria, “virus,” parasite, alien, or whatever imaginary creation they want to dream up next, is actually pathogenic. The Postulates as originally stated are straightforward to the point that most children can understand them. There is no need to modify the logical standards in any way. The only reason for doing so is because the results that the researchers ultimately find do not fit in with the overall germ theory narrative. People like Thomas Rivers have tried to weaken the Postulates through rewrites and revisions in order to get around them yet even these watered-down versions are unable to be fulfilled. Interestingly, even though the people defending virology claim that Koch’s Postulates are outdated, irrelevant, and/or don’t apply to virology, they are regularly betrayed by their own sources. According to the WHO:

“Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s postulate.” The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.” -WHO 2003

https://web.archive.org/web/20210105005624/https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_03_27b/en/

Virologist Ron Fouchier, who claimed to have fulfilled Koch’s Postulates yet instead attempted and failed at fulfilling Rivers weakened criteria, also stated it was necessary:

“For starters, we’ll find out whether animals get sick from this virus. You can isolate a virus from a patient, but that does not mean they died from it; to show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates.”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/ron-fouchier-new-coronavirus-we-need-fulfill-kochs-postulates

It is stated by researchers within various “coronavirus” papers that the Postulates are a necessary requirement to prove causation:

From the 2012 Zaki MERS paper:

“It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1211721

From the 2020 Zhu “SARS-COV-2” paper:

“Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017

From the 2020 Zhou “SARS-COV-2 ” paper:

“The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#ref-CR13

As it is very clear that Koch’s Postulates are absolutely necessary for proving that any microbe actually causes disease, you may be confused as to why I said that the Postulates are both necessary and unnecessary. While the Postulates are great for determining whether a microbe can be a causative agent of disease, these criteria can only be used on those microbes that have been physically shown to exist. This is why they worked brilliantly for bacteria as these entities can be seen, studied, and manipulated. As bacteria physically exist and can be put through the Postulates, it was ultimately shown that they do not cause disease. Koch and Co. had to bend the rules and create illogical concepts in order to claim that the Postulates were satisfied when it is clear that they were not.

“Viruses,” on the other hand, are a completely different story. The “virus” existed first as a concept and never as a physical entity. No one has ever seen a “virus.” No one can observe a “virus” floating about in nature nor see them infecting a host and causing disease. “Viruses” can not be seen, studied, and manipulated in order to even be put through the first Postulate as they can never be found inside the fluids of a sick nor healthy host. In order to be “seen,” the “virus” must be conjured up in the lab in an unpurified and non-isolated state through the cell culture method. Unlike bacteria which can be seen under regular light microscopy, the particles claimed to be “viruses” can only be “seen” in an unpurified state under heavy alterations in electron microscopy imaging. There is no way for researchers to fulfill Koch’s Postulates as they are not working with real entities.

More importantly, before any particles assumed to be “viruses” can be subjected to Koch’s Postulates, they must be put through the steps of the scientific method first, which Koch’s Postulates are loosely based upon. However, simply adhering to the scientific method, the very purpose of actually performing science, actually makes Koch’s Postulates redundant and unnecessary. The scientific method takes things further than Koch ever did and ensures that there is no room to wiggle around. The steps of the scientific method are as follows:

  • Observe a phenomenon
  • Alternate hypothesis
    • Independent variable (the presumed cause)
    • Dependent variable (the observed effect)
    • Control variables
  • Null hypothesis
  • Test/experiment
  • Analyze the observation/data
  • Validate/invalidate hypothesis

As “viruses” can not seen in nature, they can not be observed in order to formulate a hypothesis in order to claim that these imaginary particles are a potential cause of disease. Thus, virology can not get past the very first two steps of the scientific method, arguably the more important criteria that must be satisfied first before Koch’s Postulates should even be considered. In order to complete the scientific method and then consider Koch’s Postulates, there must be a valid independent variable to use to determine cause and effect. This would be the complete purification and isolation of the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from the fluids of a sick host. Virologists admit over and over again that this is impossible for “viruses,” thus there is no valid independent variable in order to determine cause and effect. Without a valid independent variable, both the scientific method and Koch’s Postulates can never be adhered to nor satisfied. However, if virology did somehow aquire purified and isolated “viral” particles from the fluids of a sick host by adhering to the scientific method, Koch’s Postulates, as originally defined, would fit in as a necessary logical compliment to guide the research. Until then, virology will always remain a pseudoscientific endeavor based upon imaginary boogeymen.

Um…about those asymptomatic carriers…

In Summary:

  • In the late 1800’s, German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out his celebrated criteria for judging whether a given bacteria is the cause of a given disease
  • The four Postulates are as follows:
    • The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms
    • The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture
    • The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism
    • The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent
  • According to virologist Thomas Rivers: “It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.”
  • According to virologist Vincent Racaniello, despite the importance of Koch’s postulates in the development of microbiology, they have severe limitations
    • For example, he believed that cholera and leprosy were caused by microbes, but could not fulfill all four postulates
    • Koch knew that the putative agent of cholera, Vibrio cholerae, could be isolated from both sick and healthy people, invalidating postulate #2 (oddly enough, Racaniello listed the wrong Postulate as this invalidates #1, not #2)
  • According to a 2010 article in the The Journal of Infectious Diseases, these postulates were revised numerous times:
    • By the eminent virologist Thomas Rivers in 1937 to reflect the biology of “viruses,” which, as obligate intracellular parasites, cannot be isolated in pure culture
    • Huebner further modified these principles in 1957, during the heyday of “virus” discovery that followed the development of tissue and cell culture
    • Fredricks and Relman applied these guidelines to sequence-based microbe discovery
  • It was stated that there are numerous challenges (i.e. excuses) in proving “viruses” as the etiologic causes of specific syndromes
    • Prolonged “viral” shedding after acute illness (eg, enteroviruses)
    • Latent infection and asymptomatic shedding (eg, herpesviruses)
    • Clinical disease in a minority of infected individuals (eg, poliovirus)
    • Recurrent asymptomatic infection of immune adults (eg, respiratory syncytial “virus”)
  • According to a Reuters “Fact Check,” Koch’s postulates, as they were originally understood, do not need to be demonstrated in order to establish that a microbe causes a disease
  • According to the late researcher David Crowe: “It is very important to note that these are logical postulates, not scientific laws. They are, in other words, just simple, straightforward, every day logic. Koch’s brilliance was putting them into simple words and forcing those who promoted infectious disease theories (most of which were wrong) into a corner. Fulfill these simple logical postulates, or go home.”
  • The three excuses regularly provided for why Koch’s Postulates can not be satisfied are as follows:
    • Robert Koch developed his criteria specifically for bacteria as “viruses” were unknown at the time
    • Unlike bacteria, “viruses” can not be grown in a pure culture and thus Postulate #2 can not be satisfied
    • Robert Koch knew the limitations of his own postulates as he found asymptomatic carriers of bacteria and could not fulfill some of his postulates for bacterial disease
  • It has been stated that Koch abandoned the requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera and, later, of typhoid fever
  • It has since been claimed that the illogical concept of the asymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially “viruses” such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV, and hepatitis C
  • According to Merriam-Webster, asymptomatic carriers of disease (an oxymoron) are those who are “not causing, marked by, or presenting with signs or symptoms of infection, illness, or disease.”
  • The CDC added new language referring to asymptomatic individuals as “healthy people”
  • The majority of bacterial diseases are made up for the most part of the illogical asymptomatic disease carrier thus failing Koch’s first Postulate
  • Asymptomatic Bacterial Diseases:
    • Tuberculosis
      • About 90% of those infected with M. tuberculosis have asymptomatic, latent TB infections (sometimes called LTBI), with only a 10% lifetime chance that the latent infection will progress to overt, active tuberculous disease
      • Around 10% of latent infections progress to active disease
      • People infected with TB bacteria have a 5–10% lifetime risk of falling ill with TB
      • About one-quarter of the world’s population has a TB infection, which means people have been infected by TB bacteria but are not (yet) ill with the disease and cannot transmit it
      • Persons with latent TB infection do not feel sick and do not have any symptoms
      • Persons with latent TB infection are not infectious and cannot spread TB infection to others
      • Overall, without treatment, about 5 to 10% of infected persons will develop TB disease at some time in their lives
    • Salmonella
      • The chronic, asymptomatic carrier state is thought to be a key feature of continued maintenance of the bacterium within human populations
      • These asymptomatic carriers presumably act as reservoirs for a diverse range of S. Typhi strains and may act as a breeding ground for new genotypes
      • The majority of chronic carriers in endemic settings are asymptomatic, and up to 25% have no clinical history of typhoid
      • Detection of carriers poses a difficult challenge since up to 25% of these individuals do not recall a history of typhoid and currently available diagnostic assays are limited
      • Asymptomatic, chronic gallbladder carriers of S. Typhi have been recognized for over a century
      • While asymptomatic, they may continue to shed bacteria in their stool for decades
    • H. Pylori
      • Usually asymptomatic, but H. pylori is the major cause of peptic ulcer disease and gastritis worldwide
      • Asymptomatic infections do not need to be treated
      • Helicobacter pylori infection is present in more than 50% of the world’s population
      • The prevalence of H. pylori infection in asymptomatic population was 67.7%
    • Cholera
      • Most infections are asymptomatic (i.e. do not cause any illness)
      • Cholera infection is most often asymptomatic or results in mild gastroenteritis
    • Syphilis
      • The latent (hidden) stage of syphilis is a period when there are no visible signs or symptoms of syphilis.
      • Without treatment, syphilis will remain in the body even though there are no signs or symptoms
      • Latent syphilis can last for years
      • Approximately 50% of people with syphilis are asymptomatic
      • Approximately one-third of untreated people will develop tertiary syphilis
      • The tertiary stage occurs after a latent period, when infection is identifiable on serological testing but the patient does not have symptoms or signs
      • The tertiary stage usually appears within three to ten years after syphilis was first acquired, although it can appear up to 40 years later
      • Symptoms and signs are absent, but antibodies, detected by serologic tests for syphilis (STS), persist
      • Syphilis may remain latent permanently
    • Gonorrhea
      • Many infections are asymptomatic, so reported cases only capture a fraction of the true burden
      • Many men and most women with gonorrhea are asymptomatic
    • Pertussis
      • A new study by Boston University School of Public Health and the University of Georgia’s Odum School of Ecology presents evidence that could help explain this resurgence: asymptomatic individuals. Lots of them
      • The study suggests that most adults and many children who contract pertussis display no symptoms at alla reversal of what many experts have long believed
      • Asymptomatic pertussis infection has been reported during outbreaks
      • Asymptomatic B. pertussis infections are common in school children in China, and asymptomatic B. parapertussis infections are more prevalent than previously documented
    • Tetanus
      • Typically, illness is asymptomatic or mild in the vast majority of infected persons, with a small proportion experiencing severe disease
    • E. Coli
      • Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a bacteria that is commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded organisms and most E.coli strains are harmless
      • An asymptomatic carrier state has been reported, where individuals show no clinical signs of disease but are capable of infecting others
      • The majority of foodborne Escherichia coli infections are asymptomatic or mild and self-limited
    • Chlamydia
      • It is difficult to account for many cases of chlamydia as most people with the infection have no symptoms and do not seek testing
      • This is because most people with the infection have no symptoms or abnormal physical exam findings
      • Two modeling studies estimate that about 10% of men and 5-30% of women with a confirmed infection develop symptoms
      • Most chlamydial infections are asymptomatic, with up to 75% of females and 50% of males exhibiting no symptoms and as such, most cases remain undiagnosed
  • Bacteria are found almost everywhere on Earth and are vital to our health and the planet’s ecosystems
  • Most bacteria in the body are harmless, and some are even helpful and only a relatively small number of species are said to cause disease
  • The current estimate is that we are about 43% human if counting up all the cells
  • The Weizmann scientists redid the estimate and found that there were about 39 trillion bacterial cells in the body
  • They estimate that the range of bacterial cells goes from about 30 to 50 trillion in each individual
  • We are considered more microbe than human
  • Further highlighting the fact that Koch’s Postulates work yet he went around his own rules, Koch was unable to reproduce the Cholera disease in animals thus failing his 3rd Postulate
  • After being unsuccessful with infecting animals, Koch tried to infect himself yet he came down with only a mild episode of diarrhea, an outcome which was later on exploited by his opponents to ridicule him
  • Koch still tried to make the case that Vibrio cholerae was the causative agent of Cholera even when the bacteria was not present in those who had the sane symptoms of disease:
    • “This is not to say, however, that conversely the absence or rather the non-detection of cholera bacteria in a case suspected of having cholera proves the absence of cholera under all circumstances.”
    • He felt that this absence of the bacteria was due “either because the investigator is insufficiently qualified or because they were examined at an unsuitable point in time, the cholera bacteria are not found.”
    • He decided that the mildest cases of cholera, in which “cholera bacteria were found in the solid deposits of apparently healthy people,” must be regarded as real cases of cholera and could “not be used as evidence against the specific character of the cholera bacteria.”
  • In other words, Koch tried to wiggle around many parts of his Postulates with Cholera by stating that it could be found in healthy people, that it did not need to be found in all cases of disease, and that it did not need to reproduce the disease in animals
  • It is painfully obvious that bacteria have never satisfied Koch’s original Postulates as detailed below by the many ways in which they regularly fail
  • Lots of “pathogenic” organisms are found in healthy animals, producing disease in only a tiny fraction of the individuals who are infected (Postulate 1 Failed)
  • Many pathogens do not grow in nutrient medium culture (Postulate 2 Failed)
  • This would also apply to “viruses,” none of which grow in cell-free media
  • Some of the worst microorganisms will not produce disease in healthy animals (Postulate 3 Failed)
  • Many infections, considered the underlying cause of a disease, are absent from the lesions that ultimately develop (Postulate 4 Failed)
  • In the case of Whipple disease, Koch’s postulates never came close to being satisfied
  • However, the consistent identification in Whipple disease tissue of a particular molecule, characteristic of a particular species of bacteria, was deemed sufficient to establish the infectious origin of the disease
  • Regarding virology, determination of causality had to be relaxed to accommodate asymptomatic carriage as well as the complexity of recovering these infectious agents and successfully demonstrating infection in animal models
  • Further evidence of causality was gleaned from use of serologic criteria whereby appearance of antibodies against the proposed pathogenic “virus” could corroborate its role in disease aetiology
  • In other words, the logical rules were discarded in order to establish unproven illogical concepts such as asymptomatic carriers of disease, the immune system, latent infections, and antibodies to keep the germ theory lie afloat
  • This leaves us with the question: are Koch’s Postulates necessary? According to these sources, absolutely:
    • WHO: “Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s postulate.” The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”
    • Virologist Ron Fouchier: “For starters, we’ll find out whether animals get sick from this virus. You can isolate a virus from a patient, but that does not mean they died from it; to show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates.”
    • Dr. Zaki MERS 2012 Paper: “It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.”
    • Zhu 2020 “SARS-COV-2” Paper: “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.”
    • Zhou 2020 “SARS-COV-2” Paper: “The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”
  • Koch’s Postulates are necessary as they are the minimal requirements expected to be satisfied, yet they become unnecessary and redundant if and when researchers adhere to the scientific method as they are supposed to in any scientific endeavor

In the late 1800’s, German scientist Robert Koch decided to establish four logical criteria that must be satisfied in order to show that a microorganism causes disease. These criteria, which later became known as Koch’s Postulates, were simple and straightforward so that even a child could understand them. However, as he progressed his studies into the supposed pathogenic nature of Cholera, Koch realized that he was unable to satisfy his own rules. Even though the first Postulate required that the microorganism is only found in those with disease, Koch regularly found the bacteria in those without symptoms  of disease. Rather than acknowledge that his first Postulate worked as intended by disproving Vibrio cholerae as pathogenic, Koch bent his own rules so that the bacteria could be found in both healthy and sick individuals and still be considered the causative agent. This was a pivotal moment where a man turned his back on his own logic in order to establish the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease. This opened the door for Koch to continue to deny his own logic by bending his own rules even further once he realized that he could not make animals nor himself sick with disease using the bacteria. Like a frustrated puzzler trying to cram the wrong pieces together in order to complete the image in the jigsaw puzzle, Koch began to work around the logic trap that he had unwittingly established.

What ultimately transpired was a proverbial opening of the flood gates as numerous bacteria were eventually claimed to be causative agents of disease even though they are mostly found in healthy people who never succumbed to disease. When it eventually became clear that not all disease could be linked to bacteria, invisible “viruses” were dreamt up to blame as the likely cause. However, even more so than the bacteria before them, “viruses” could not be shown to fulfill Koch’s Postulates. In order to claim satisfaction of these criteria for virology, new rules and revisions were written to further kick the logic can down the road. However, even these weakened versions, which were made to be easier for virologists to satisfy, have never been fulfilled. Thus, debates have waged whether Koch’s Postulates are relevant and necessary today in spite of the fact that they are celebrated criteria that are considered an essential requirement to prove microbes cause disease. Ironically, Koch trapped himself and all future researchers in a logical cage that they are still attempting to escape from today.

Koch turning his back on his own logic at various points throughout his research led to other researchers feeling emboldened to do the same. Because of this, we now live in an illogical world where healthy people carrying normal bacteria and fictional “viruses” within them are said to be unknowingly spreading the “pathogens” infecting others. We live in a world where those with the disease do not even need to have evidence of the bacteria or “virus” within them in order to be considered a case. We live in a world where the symptoms of disease do not even need to be experimentally reproduced in animals nor in humans in order for the assumed pathogen to be confirmed as the culprit. We now live in an illogical world of “disease” due to the simple fact that all logic as laid forth was abandoned at the outset in order to keep the germ theory lie afloat.

31 comments

  1. I suspect the idea of asymptomatic relates directly to the assumption of hereditary carry over of something like an inherited genetic disorder such as Haemophilia.

    It was used a scar tactic IMO

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I found the article to be very uninformed.

    No discussion on toxins as the cause of “polio” paralysis, nor the beneficial nature of germs and bacteria.

    Sadly no discussion on the presence of germs and bacteria as a result of dis ease, not the cause.

    Like

  3. Everyone has heard of asymptomatic carriers of pathogenic microorganisms or “viruses”. According to the “scientists”, although the supposed immune system is so weakened that it cannot prevent the person from being infected by pathogenic microorganisms or “viruses”, for some reason (completely unknown to the “scientists”) the pathogenic microorganisms and “viruses” fail to cause damage to the tissues of the body and to degrade the health of the infected person. And despite this nonsensical bio-medical narrative, people fail to see the colossal flaw in the “asymptomatic carriers” narrative.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The four postulates of Robert Koch about the so-called allegedly pathogenic microorganisms, say the following:

    1) The alleged pathogenic micro-organisms must be found in abundance in ALL organisms suffering from the alleged infectious disease, but must not be found in ANY of the organisms that are healthy (in other words, there must not be even a single asymptomatic carrier of supposedly pathogenic microorganisms).

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

    3) The alleged pathogenic microorganism, which has been isolated and propagated in pure culture (i.e., propagated alone, without other microorganisms of another genus), must cause disease when introduced NATURALLY into a healthy organism (i.e., in depending on the specificity of the alleged pathogenic microorganism: airborne, digestive, sexual contact, skin).

    4) The purported pathogenic microorganism must be re-isolated from the experimental host that became ill as a result of natural inoculation (inoculation by natural means, as infection is assumed to occur in nature) and then identified as being the same as the microorganism original specific causal.

    Regarding the declared ability of some of the microorganisms to make us sick, the so-called microbiologists have not even been able to prove that the declared pathogenic microorganisms fulfill Koch’s first postulate, which says that pathogenic microorganisms must NOT exist, absolutely at all , in the bodies of healthy people, i.e. in the bodies of people without any symptoms of the disease declared as infectious. In other words, the existence of the category of people who are considered “healthy carriers” of allegedly pathogenic microorganisms … completely demolishes the theory of the existence of pathogenic microorganisms.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Some of your conclusions here are not grounded in reality.

    For example, you write:

    “Unlike “viruses,” bacteria can be seen with regular microscopes and they can be purified and isolated and thus proven to exist. “Viruses” can not be seen using regular microscopes and can not be properly purified and isolated. As “viruses” can not be purified and isolated, there is no DIRECT proof that these entities exist in the first place.”

    It is interesting that you do not apply the same mode of thinking to bacteria that you do to viruses. Bacteria and parasites are claimed to be responsible for all kinds of diseases. They derive most of their (false) conclusions of so-called bacterial and parasitical pathogeny upon static lab conditions that do not behave as they would in the body or nature itself. The same is true for their treatment of viruses. However, this does not mean they cannot view the actual entities themselves. The study of so-called pathogenicity in artificial lab environments is different than the study and observation of the existence of the entity itself.

    Secondly, a regular microscope (optical) and an electron microscope are merely tools. You seem to be suggesting in your text that because viruses require higher magnification, they do not exist.

    I would also like to draw attention to your ending statement:

    ““viruses” can not be purified and isolated, there is no DIRECT proof that these entities exist in the first place.”

    and…

    “Those who throw about the second excuse state that “viruses” need a host cell in order to replicate and thus can not be grown in a pure state (i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign elements).”

    and…

    “In order to be “seen,” the “virus” must be conjured up in the lab in an unpurified and non-isolated state through the cell culture method.”

    None of this is true. Viruses do not always need an artificial culture in order to isolate the particle. As well, bacteria cannot be grown in a pure state either, or they would have no food source by which to grow from. Your implied usage of the word “pure”, is once again, incorrect. Pure is a relative term in science. Nothing is 100% pure with regard to the human body or its constructs.

    More toward this point, viruses can indeed be purified and isolated directly from host organisms without artificial lab culture. Plant and insect viruses have no such requirement for culture. They can be grown, infected, and allowed to die while the virus remains intact. The sample must then simply be purified and viewed. Therefore, with most lower organisms, their own body is the natural culture by which the virus can be extracted and purified.

    Also, you are attempting to argue in favor of Koch’s postulates when they were designed by Koch, who was himself a believer in pathogenic entities. And in regard to its use in modern virology: A modified form of Koch’s postulates is used in virology—not the classic postulates as originally designed by Koch.

    Finally, you mention the scientific method in a false light once again, by stating in part:

    “However, simply adhering to the scientific method, the very purpose of actually performing science, actually makes Koch’s Postulates redundant and unnecessary. The scientific method takes things further than Koch ever did and ensures that there is no room to wiggle around. The steps of the scientific method are as follows…[you then list the steps according to you]”

    As I have written on your website before: There is no set of rigid steps to the scientific method. The scientific method is in flux with every branch of science, especially including virology. Yes, there are basic logical patterns by which to adhere, but the ‘no-virus’ gang has weaponized its own strict, but impossible to adhere to set of rules, that they claim all virologists must follow, lest they deem it to be pseudoscience.

    The scientific method is a set of principles that govern the attitude of a researcher—not a strict set of rules that must be followed from points A to B. I have already previously provided you the scientific quotations to back this statement up, so go seek that out if you disagree. Or, you may see my article on Substack titled ‘Virology and the Scientific Method’, where I discuss the errors you all are making in regard to the method and other related things.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “It is interesting that you do not apply the same mode of thinking to bacteria that you do to viruses.”

      I absolutely apply the same criteria to both bacteria and parasites as I do “viruses.” I never once claimed either are pathogenic. However unlike “viruses,” bacteria and parasites can be isolated and seen in a living state under regular light microscopy. They can be found in nature and/or bodily fluids. Regarding pure cultures of bacteria, they can select and grow the specific colony they want to study and isolate it from all of the others:

      “A pure culture is one that ONLY CONTAINS THE BACTERIAL SPECIES YOU WISH TO GROW. The ease with which this can be achieved is likely to depend very much on the source of your sample, the abundance of the target species compared to other species and the target species itself. If your source is another pure culture or a strain that has been isolated and stored in the freezer, then the culture may already be pure. If, however, the source is a clinical or environmental sample, there are likely to be many other bacterial species and potentially fungi present too that will also grow happily in your culture conditions. Selective media and restricted growth conditions (e.g., aerobic vs anerobic culture) can help to eliminate non-target species and narrow the field. Streaking the sample onto solid media rather than into broth culture WILL ALLOW VISUAL IDENTIFICATION OF COLONIES OF INTEREST FROM THE GENERAL BACKGROUND. It may be necessary to PICK AND RE-STREAK BACTERIAL COLONIES OF INTEREST onto fresh agar plates a few times before a pure culture can be obtained. Once this is achieved, they may then be grown in liquid culture if desired. If the target species is present only in low numbers, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO STREAK MULTIPLE PLATES FROM THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THEM. Some species grow more rapidly and vigorously than others, so this too is a factor to consider.”

      https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/articles/an-introduction-to-culturing-bacteria-355566

      “They derive most of their (false) conclusions of so-called bacterial and parasitical pathogeny upon static lab conditions that do not behave as they would in the body or nature itself.”

      I do not disagree. From what I’ve seen, the conclusions regarding bacteria and parasites are absolutely just as faulty as those made regarding “viruses.”

      “Secondly, a regular microscope (optical) and an electron microscope are merely tools. You seem to be suggesting in your text that because viruses require higher magnification, they do not exist.”

      “Viruses” must be conjured up in a lab under harsh unpurified cell culture conditions and can not be isolated before imaging. This unpurified sample is then subjected to further alterations (fixing, dehydrating, staining, embedding, etc.) and extremely high heat to obtain images of the non-living cellular debris claimed to be “viruses.” Bacteria and parasites are not subjected to the same harsh conditions under regular microscopy.

      “Viruses do not always need an artificial culture in order to isolate the particle.”

      Please share where “viruses” were purified and isolated without artificial culture.

      “More toward this point, viruses can indeed be purified and isolated directly from host organisms without artificial lab culture.”

      On that note, please share where this is done for HUMAN “viruses,” not plants or insects.

      “A modified form of Koch’s postulates is used in virology—not the classic postulates as originally designed by Koch.”

      You are being disingenuous. I provided plenty of examples from the WHO and various virologists stating that KOCH’S Postulates must be satisfied. None of them claimed that they must satisfy modified Koch’s Postulates. Even if they were to claim Rivers, Hill, etc., (which are no longer Koch’s Postulates at that point), the modified versions have yet to be fulfilled.

      “There is no set of rigid steps to the scientific method. The scientific method is in flux with every branch of science, especially including virology.”

      I have provided you plenty of examples for why the scientific method is a set of established rules that must be adhered to in order to be considered science. I won’t keep supplying you the same information. Please describe how virology proves cause and effect without adhering to the scientific method. Which step do they get to skip over and why?

      Observe a phenomenon

      Alternate hypothesis

      Independent variable (the presumed cause)

      Dependent variable (the observed effect)

      Control variables

      Null hypothesis

      Test/experiment

      Analyze the observation/data

      Validate/invalidate hypothesis

      Like

    2. virologists created those rules then cheated to get past them. it wasn’t the no virus people, it was them. they said their samples were purified and isolated when they were not purified nor isolated. if you think disease can be proven without isolation, then say so, but when virologists say their samples are purified they are showing that they don’t think it is possible.

      getting an independent variable is standard procedure. I don’t think it’s necessary to suggest a cause but it is to prove one beyond a shadow of a doubt. virologists act as if they have one. billions of dollars are made in its name and those who disagree are censured… so let’s not pretend germ theory is the little guy trying to make a name for itself. if it was seen as such a gray area it would not have the monopoly it has today.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Viruses don’t exist. They are a fabrication, a scam, a lie. There is no pathogenicity and no parasitism in nature. Except for people who are liars and evil at heart and commit any crime to preserve their delusions of grandeur… there is no pathogenic or parasitic life form in Nature. It’s all symbiosis and saprophytism. Also, there are no atoms and molecules. There is no DNA and no proteins. In reality, all chemistry and all so-called molecular biology are just colossal scams.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What you have written is breathtakingly ignorant. More telling is that Mike Stone agrees with you.

      If a crow feeds upon a dead animal, it is parasitical in nature. The same is true for maggots, and so forth. They are scavengers. When you write of symbiosis, you must also include its parasitical nature. Parasites are beneficial in nature, but they are still parasites.

      Proteins don’t exist? And again, Mike Stone ‘likes’ your comment. How then can we consume flesh meat and use it to build muscle? Magic? Without protein and fat, foods would be of no benefit in such regard. Do nutrients exist? You haven’t thought this through much. You’ve stated before on this blog that cells do not exist. How ignorant can one person be?
      Without cell walls, the body could no longer capture and remove toxins, let alone break down food and deliver nutrients to areas that need them. Everything in the body would be intermingled and open to oxidation because it is not compartmentalized. For example, cell lysosomes would be free-floating and dissolve everything they touch.

      Seeds are a type of cell. Do seeds exist? What about the many varied trees and plants that grow forth from seed? Branch that off from the cell to the higher domain—does a worm have a wall to protect it? Yes.

      What you wrote, and Stone agreed with, is a complete delusion. This just shows the breadth of ignorance that the ‘no-virus’ gang actively promotes with a straight face.

      DNA doesn’t exist? You can see chromosomal DNA when it is packaged tightly during cell mitosis. It becomes visible under optical microscopy due to its large compact size. DNA exists. Without DNA, you would have no genetics. Without genetics, there would be no visibly shared traits between members of the same family, among so much more. DNA is the seed of life.

      Without atoms, the earth’s atmosphere would be nonexistent and there would be no refraction from sunlight hitting atoms that make up the atmosphere that visibly turns the sky blue due to the shorter wavelength of blue light refracting evenly over the entire upper atmosphere.

      Finally, without molecules, there would be no water. Without water, you wouldn’t be here.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes JG let’s talk about the FOUR states of water; solid, gel, liquid & gas, ok?.
        The human body is made of mostly water which is all in a special structured physical form known as a gel. So we have red blood blood gels and liver gels and heart gels and pancreas gels and the rest.
        Why is understanding this so important?
        Because water has memory, particularly structured water in the form of our gels. And such structured water communicates with the rest of the ‘verse, particularly with brain gels, because all human gels structurally depend on plasma for form, function and to communicate with all other gels throughout the body particularly the interstitial fluid.
        Speaking of communication we must not forget the pineal gland in particular which more than all other gels is a transceiving transducer connecting all of our gels continuously to the greater ‘Verse. So any wonder those mega maniacs who would control humanity have of course poisoned us with the top three Halogens fluorine, chlorine and bromine which all displace the all important Halogen iodine leading to calcification of the pineal gland?
        Concerning the rest like DNA , viruses, GMO and genetics etc, all are CONSPIRACY THEROIES developed by Big pHARMa etc to support a delusional narrative pushing more and more toxic drugs & injections on an unsuspecting population.

        Like

      2. Hey Jeff

        “If a crow feeds upon a dead animal, it is parasitical in nature. The same is true for maggots, and so forth. They are scavengers. When you write of symbiosis, you must also include its parasitical nature. Parasites are beneficial in nature, but they are still parasites.”

        By definition, parasites are organisms that feed on or in other living organisms (hosts), not dead organisms; as you said, the feeding on dead organisms is scavenging which is unrelated to parasitism. When a host dies the parasite becomes a scavenger, by sequential definition.

        Regarding symbiosis in the context of parasites, parasite-host relationships exhibiting mutualism are symbiotic but the relationships exhibiting commensalism are not symbiotic. Not every interspecies relationship is technically symbiotic.

        Like

      3. Bjorno

        That’s a simple and pleasant sounding new age cosmology, but largely devoid of reason.

        How do you explain the polymerase chain reaction — natural or farmed — if DNA does not exist?

        The answer is that you can’t explain it. Yet it clearly exists for very obvious reasons. Which means you have more work to do whether you ultimately choose to do that work or not.

        Like

      4. @reante

        Thanks for the correction and information, reante. I was mainly attempting to describe that parasites (in part) mostly live off of and regulate dead and/or decaying tissue internally in the body, and was thinking of animals that live off other animals to try to illustrate that (in hindsight, not as clearly as I could have).

        Liked by 1 person

    2. There is predation in nature, but you’re right that that is not parasitism. Parasitism would be the strange condition of a creature attacking the very ecosystem within which it lives. Predators do not attack *the ecosystem itself*.

      The principle that applies to all sufficiently mature ecosystems is this: “Everything that makes its home within an ecosystem works for the success of that ecosystem.” The human body is extraordinarily mature as an ecosystem, so it applies utterly.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. The pleomorphism of microorganisms shows that microorganisms are nothing but the consequence, the result, of the decomposition of living matter down to the level of microzymes.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I can imagine “germs cause disease” as the bailey and “germs are a factor in disease” as the motte. To prove the latter they would only have to show there was a statistical correlation between the presence of the germ and the presence of symptoms.

    Of course there are many complications even with that, nevermind that most diseases are actually beneficial processes carried out on purpose by the body anyway, often with bacteria working for the body as “sub-contractors.”

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m left wondering if there are any efforts made to make statistical correlation claims between positive tests and symptoms in the manner I described.

        I feel like that could be their last line of defense if all their direct causality arguments are knocked down.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. “The appearance in the living organism of life forms with a more complex structure than bacteria always indicates a very low energy level in the organism, which is called Redox potential and can be measured in millivolts. This also applies to the so-called parasites. To clarify the role of parasites in this context, much more research would be needed in the right direction. If a very low energy state persists for too long, weakness and symptoms result because the body no longer has enough energy to regenerate itself. These symptoms are then blamed on so-called parasites without any evidence, just as bacteria are blamed for other symptoms/diseases.
    No research has ever been done to see if the parasites are some kind of symbionts that try to supply the body with the energy it lacks, because if the parasites caused the lack of energy then they wouldn’t appear exactly when the energy level of the body is already extremely low. That is precisely why the cause of the lack of energy must be sought before the appearance of the so-called parasites.”

    Stefan Lanka – biologist

    Like

    1. In what ecosystem as mature as the human body does a creature that makes its home in the ecosystem ever work to undermine that ecosystem?

      The rule that a creature that makes it’s home in an ecosystem betters that ecosystem seems to apply to “parasites” just as much as to anything. Aajonus Vonderplanitz tried to get a “parasite” by eating as much rotten meat as he could, finding that when he got a parasite his longstanding Crohn’s disease symptoms went away, and he found similar benefits in everyone who acquired one.

      Ecosystems are natural orders where every agent in the system has a role to play. Multiple roles in fact; you entangle yourself into as many win-win relationships with other agents as you can, and if you fail to find a niche where you can intimately intertwine your action with many others in a deeply mutually beneficial way, there’s no way you won’t get outcompeted for your spot in that ecosystem by some creature that can.

      Recruitment ad: “Competition is fierce to be a member of Team Body. Do you have what it takes? Learn what we can do for your and you can do for us.”

      In the macro world there’s enough churn for a plant or animal to occasionally find itself in a sparse, non-lush, immature ecosystem that it can tear through opportunistically and radically change the equilibrium of that system, but the micro world of the human body isn’t remotely like that. Every millimeter of the body is teaming with creatures all in deeply intertwined, deeply mutualistic symbiosis.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Dr Stefan Lanka has brought up such valuable understandings and there are some great articles on the wissenschaftplus, unfortunately only in German.

      He mentioned in a video that the role of a fever is also to provide energy, for microorganism to quickly transform into minis-pores ( as have no time to build spores if under extreme conditions) to be used as an energy source in the body .

      Liked by 1 person

  10. From the article:
    „A team of doctors led by associate professor of parasitology, Dr Gholamreza Molavi, from the School of Public Health in Tehran visited Amou Haji in the village of Dejgah and convinced him to let him run some tests. They included tests for various forms of hepatitis and AIDS as well as parasites.

    Dr. Molavi and his team were particularly interested in finding and studying the parasites and bacteria that might have developed in his unwashed body, but were surprised to find no disease-causing bacteria or parasites, except for Trichinosis, an infection that, in his case, appeared to be producing no symptoms.”

    https://hamariweb.com/articles/150120

    Like

  11. Koch isolated the tuberculosis bacterium and injected this into animals, producing tuberculosis in all but one. He had control animals handled the same save for the tuberculosis bacterium, who did not develop tuberculosis.

    Click to access 1882p109-1zk8qn3.pdf

    This supports causality of a bacterium causing disease to me, though I would like more explanation of how the controls were treated. Were they injected with a saline solution instead? I can’t see that it specifies. Perhaps his initial postulates were indeed too strict. Has this experiment been replicated since, with more adequate explanation of the methodology?

    Like

    1. Thanks for sharing the paper Jay! I will have to do a write-up on it. After a quick read, there are a few problems with the paper provided. The first is that the methods are poorly defined:

      “The material for study was PREPARED IN THE USUAL MANNER for the study of pathogenic bacteria.”

      As you pointed out, what was done for controls was also ill-defined as we do not really know what was used nor the exact steps:

      “The control animals, which
      were HANDLED IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as the inoculated animals, remained healthy.”

      The route of inoculation was not a natural route by any means and the development of tuberculosis seemed to be based on internal changes to organs versus producing the same symptoms of disease. These changes were also noted to be different when compared between artificial and “natural” infection:

      “The place of inoculation of the animals IS IN THE ABDOMEN close to the inguinal gland. This first becomes swollen and gives an early and unmistakable indication that the inoculation has been a success. Since a larger amount of infectious material is present at the beginning, the infection progresses much faster than the spontaneous infection, and in tissue sections of these animals, THE SPLEEN AND LIVER SHOW MORE EXTENSIVE CHANGES FROM THE TUBERCULOSIS THAN THE LUNGS. Therefore it is not at all difficult to differentiate the ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED TUBERCULOSIS from the spontaneous tuberculosis in experimental animals.”

      “The results of a number of inoculation experiments with bacillus cultures inoculated into a large number
      of animals, and inoculated in different
      ways, all have led to the same results.
      Simple injections SUBCUTANEOUSLY, OR INTO THE PERITONEAL CAVITY, OR INTO THE ANTERIOR CHAMBER OF THE EYE, OR DIRECTLY INTO THE BLOOD STREAM, have all produced tuberculosis with only one exception.”

      Interestingly, the notes included with the study stated Koch did not prove what he was working with was the cause of human tuberculosis:

      “It should be noted that in this paper he DOES NOT HAVE A FINAL PROOF that the organism he has isolated in pure culture IS REALLY THE CAUSE OF HUMAN TUBERCULOSIS. This could only be done by making inoculations in humans. Since THIS CANNOT BE DONE, we can ONLY INFER that the isolated organism causes the human disease. Such a dilemma is always with the investigator of human diseases. He must learn to live with it.”

      Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: