So why no one is able to prove any alleged bacteriophage by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them or by experimentation on them in a form of independent variables?
Why all we have is pointing and declaring of something in micrographs which come from a method (TEM) which is not validated by comparison with reference material?
Not to mention issues with processing of bio matter before it is ready for visualization.
Pathogenic bacteria is not proven by any observation or scientific experiment. And generally study and understanding what so-called bacteria really is is abysmal due a lack of proper tools and methods.
I think Dr. Yeadon's point is concisely made by his last sentence. To paraphrase, human waste can make you sick. Whether you call it a pathogen or not, it can be passed on from one human to another. So, what is it that makes you sick?
One thing I've noticed among all of the studies that disprove contagions. None of them deal with vomit and excrement, or the fluids which can be passed from one to another when someone is sick with a stomach "bug". Can a sick person that is vomiting pass it on to someone else. For the stated reasons above, I think they can.
I have been teaching people on social media platforms since the beginning of 2020 that overload of toxins and unwanted matter disrupts physiological processes. Therefore it leads to disease symptoms.
Pathogen is an alleged bio agent which causes disease symptoms. So far no one has proven any contagious disease.
Toxins, stress, malnutrition, unwanted matter, physical trauma, interaction with matter which is in specific state make us sick.
Consuming excrement or vomit, or fluids of other humans is not something which people normally do. So if anyone is doing it, it is intentional. If you consume someone's vomit and it will damage your issue from its pH state or it is toxic or it will create a toxin from mixing with content of your stomach, it is not contagious disease. Contagion is caused by alleged bio agents. Not by chemical matter.
sure Steve, r0 measures the number of colocated people near coincidentally expressing similar disease symptoms but it does not prove that it is due to transmission of a virus. what is the r0 for scurvy in a boat of sailors
But what is it, biologically, that would make some sick from consuming waste matter? What makes it toxic? ShouldnтАЩt we be able to view it microscopically?
And, if such matter is toxic, it follows that one could get sick from someone near them who is expelling toxic matter or leaving it on surfaces that are touched by hands then eats with them.
That is why I ask about studies that prove contagions of stomach illnesses. I havenтАЩt seen any. Have you?
IтАЩve seen lots of studies that disprove the transfer of colds, flu, polio, diphtheria, small pix, and other illnesses.
This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
I am waiting for your response with irrefutable evidence that supports your claims.
I think you are confusing my intention. I am not making the claim that you think contagions are real. You are probably aware of the same studies I referred to. We agree. I am questioning whether or not stomach illnesses are contagious. I cannot find any studies for those as with the rest.
I know that bacteriophages are a thing.
What people choose to call them is a different matter.
They work as you described.
We used them in industry in a technique called "phage display".
As far as anyone can tell, iirc, they're a signalling system used by certain monocellular organisms.
As regards bacteria, anyone doubting their existence is welcome to make a refreshing glass of squash using the contents of an unflushed toilet.
Let me know how you get on.
So why no one is able to prove any alleged bacteriophage by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them or by experimentation on them in a form of independent variables?
Why all we have is pointing and declaring of something in micrographs which come from a method (TEM) which is not validated by comparison with reference material?
Not to mention issues with processing of bio matter before it is ready for visualization.
Pathogenic bacteria is not proven by any observation or scientific experiment. And generally study and understanding what so-called bacteria really is is abysmal due a lack of proper tools and methods.
I think Dr. Yeadon's point is concisely made by his last sentence. To paraphrase, human waste can make you sick. Whether you call it a pathogen or not, it can be passed on from one human to another. So, what is it that makes you sick?
One thing I've noticed among all of the studies that disprove contagions. None of them deal with vomit and excrement, or the fluids which can be passed from one to another when someone is sick with a stomach "bug". Can a sick person that is vomiting pass it on to someone else. For the stated reasons above, I think they can.
I have been teaching people on social media platforms since the beginning of 2020 that overload of toxins and unwanted matter disrupts physiological processes. Therefore it leads to disease symptoms.
Pathogen is an alleged bio agent which causes disease symptoms. So far no one has proven any contagious disease.
Toxins, stress, malnutrition, unwanted matter, physical trauma, interaction with matter which is in specific state make us sick.
Consuming excrement or vomit, or fluids of other humans is not something which people normally do. So if anyone is doing it, it is intentional. If you consume someone's vomit and it will damage your issue from its pH state or it is toxic or it will create a toxin from mixing with content of your stomach, it is not contagious disease. Contagion is caused by alleged bio agents. Not by chemical matter.
Explain why so many studies compute roughly the same R0 for measles.
If it isn't contagious, R0=0.
There aren't any studies finding an R0 of 0. Why not?
sure Steve, r0 measures the number of colocated people near coincidentally expressing similar disease symptoms but it does not prove that it is due to transmission of a virus. what is the r0 for scurvy in a boat of sailors
Explain why no one has proven any virus and any contagion so far.
Why no one has done it?
I am waiting for your response.
hmm.. quiet ..
As always.
Crickets or excuses.
But what is it, biologically, that would make some sick from consuming waste matter? What makes it toxic? ShouldnтАЩt we be able to view it microscopically?
And, if such matter is toxic, it follows that one could get sick from someone near them who is expelling toxic matter or leaving it on surfaces that are touched by hands then eats with them.
That is why I ask about studies that prove contagions of stomach illnesses. I havenтАЩt seen any. Have you?
IтАЩve seen lots of studies that disprove the transfer of colds, flu, polio, diphtheria, small pix, and other illnesses.
There is no study that proves contagious diseases.
If anyone claims contagious diseases being real, then the burden of proof is on them as per logic.
So how did you come to a conclusion that I claim them being real?
correct..
Barnstable County. Burden shifts to you to explain it. Over 100 people SEQUENCED with sars-cov-2. Explain it.
sequences based on what- nothing as it turns out - Cormans paper
Wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Shifting it on me is a logical fallacy.
"Burden of Proof
Informal
This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
I am waiting for your response with irrefutable evidence that supports your claims.
I think you are confusing my intention. I am not making the claim that you think contagions are real. You are probably aware of the same studies I referred to. We agree. I am questioning whether or not stomach illnesses are contagious. I cannot find any studies for those as with the rest.