there was no trial by injecting/applying the screened materials to healthy subjects to see if they would get sick.
yes there was.
and thats where you fell flat last time in May when you cicled this same myth your pushing.
they did try it on healthy subjects afterwards and looked at the changes. infact they done it a few times. infact different hospitals in different countries done it thus ruling out your silly idea that it was a bad specimen
i know you forgot that you got corrected. but atleast try to keep up with reality.
oh and you do know your 'kaufman' reference is from a doctor thats no longer in the profession is not actually treating people in ICU and his videos are from months and months ago.
we are not living in the january era of 2020 conspiracy. we are in july 2020
You seem so certain. Where is the report about this being done? Does it include all the protocols as Rivers described them in his update of Koch's Postulates? Show us please.
funny part is. that you ask for report(singular) because as i said you think there is only one report thats viable..
well i have a spoiler for you. there are many reports(plural)
you got corrected months ago. and again in a topic today where your repeating the same crap i corrected you.
so here is the link as a reminder. as its getting annoying having to correct you about the same thing in multiple forum threads multile times a year about the same thing. all because your memory doesnt last long.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54818490summary:
kaufman is using something mentioned in january.
but in
february/
march many labs around the world fulfilled Koch's postulum.
i told you about it in may.
but you still want to take 1 "kaufman" outdated script. and link HIM 3 times to make it seem like he is many voices(facepalm)
yet you couldnt even be bothered to search post history or even google.
this is also why i keep mentioning your stuck on outdated scripts from january. and keep reminding you that its now july.
seems you keep forgetting debates you already started and lost.
and yes i expect by september you are again going to forget all this. and again pretend no one has shown proof of passing the koch test.
because you are that much of an idiot
Somebody said that the moon was made of green cheese. You say that Koch's Postulates were observed, but you don't say that the more important Rivers' upgrading of Koch's Postulates was observed. Further, like the moon being made of green cheese, you don't show HOW and WHERE any of the reports show the Koch or Rivers process being done.
Talk is talk. The moon is made of green cheese. Koch's Postulates were observed and followed. Prove it. Pull up one of the reports and break it down for us, thereby proving that the report writers even know how to record their scientific processes properly.
Koch's Postulates weren't good enough for what science has found. Look at what Wikipedia says about upgrades to Kock's Postulates:
The use of these new methods has led to revised versions of Koch's postulates. Fredricks and Relman have suggested the following postulates for the 21st century:[
22]
1. A nucleic acid sequence belonging to a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease. Microbial nucleic acids should be found preferentially in those organs or gross anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in those organs that lack pathology.
2. Fewer, or no, copies of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease.
3. With resolution of disease, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. With clinical relapse, the opposite should occur.
4. When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship.
5. The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms.
6. Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level: efforts should be made to demonstrate specific in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located.
7. These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible.
These modifications are still controversial in that they do not account well for established disease associations, such as papillomavirus and cervical cancer, nor do they take into account prion diseases, which have no nucleic acid sequences of their own.
Notice that these modifications are still controversial. But they are way beyond Koch's Postulates. I'm not trying to say that reports or processes were done incorrectly. That would be like trying to say that the moon was made of green cheese.
What I want is for some knowledgeable person like yourself to open up even one report for us, and show us how step #1, above, was actually done. And then step #2, and the rest of the steps. Why would I ask for this? So that you are shown to not simply be saying that the moon is made of green cheese.
Break it down for us. Where does your selected report say or talk about:
1. The method the scientists used to withdraw the fluid from, say, the lungs of the patient/cadaver?
2. How much fluid was withdrawn?
3. The filtration methods in detail, to show us that they were only getting particles in the size-range of the supposed Covid virus or smaller.
4. The method whereby they separated out the various substances in the filtrate, be it by centrifuge or some other method?
5. Etc., etc... the whole thing.
When a researcher does a process, he is supposed to record the whole thing. He is supposed to write down in his notebook everything that he does. When a page in the notebook is filled, he is supposed to sign it with his signature, or at least initial the page. Pages are supposed to be in numerical order and dated, so that things can't be easily inserted later. If there is paperwork outside of the notebook, the notebook must make reference to this paperwork, and the outside paperwork should be dated, and signed or initialled by the researcher.
The final report that goes up onto the Internet doesn't necessarily have to contain actual copies of the notebook. But it had better list all the info found in the notebook, and the place to go to get copies of the actual notebook. It also should list the name(s) of the researchers that had a hand in every part of the report. But if it doesn't, it should have a source to contact to get the names... for potential clarification of the processes done, and for lawsuit summons or subpoenas.
Please be kind enough to tell us if any of your reports has any of this info. And with your experience, you should be able to go through the processes and show us where and how the
postulates that were used are being shown to have been used... in at least one of the reports.
Don't feel badly if you can't do it. Proper postulates were never used, Koch's or otherwise.
Coronavirus Truths: Part 2: Koch’s Postulates Not Being Used at All for COVID-19, Why? -
https://frankreport.com/2020/07/03/coronavirus-truths-part-2-kochs-postulates-not-being-used-at-all-for-covid-19-why/ - tells us that Koch, himself, permanently abandoned his own #1 postulate when he discovered that asymptomatic carriers existed.
Coronavirus Truths: Part 2: Koch’s Postulates Not Being Used at All for COVID-19, Why? goes on to show links to the fact that Covid has never been identified with certainty:
The truth is the bug has not been isolated. Koch postulates have not been applied and the alleged testing to identify the alleged virus, which may not even be the cause, is wrong more often than right.
Search for it. There are loads of other sites that say similar, but there are
NO SITES, NOT EVEN ONE, that break down the notebook report of a researcher who used reasonable postulate process properly, to identify Coronavirus.
Or can you find us a site, and show us where the breakdown of postulate usage is therein, and explain it yourself, so that we understand, from an experienced researcher?
Oh, btw. If you can at all prove that the moon is made of green cheese, and if you can explain the proof, you are really great. But be careful. If you happen to prove that Covid hasn't really been identified, you might wind up like this:
In March, two Canadians claimed to have isolated the cause, then the story disappeared, along with two Americans who were murdered who were on the cusp of advancing a new, exiting theory of COVID-19.
