People believe a lot of wacky things. Some of these things are merely amusingly wacky, while others are dangerously wacky. Among the most dangerously wacky of things that a large number of people believe in is the idea that germ theory is invalid. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., the denial that germs are the cause of disease. Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it's not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease.
Yet, as is the case with other incredibly well-supported scientific theories, such as evolution, a shocking number of people still assert that microbes don't cause disease, among them Hollywood celebrities like Bill Maher. I thought it might be worth considering the question: How on earth could people seriously deny the germ theory of disease, given how much success the application of this theory has demonstrated in decreasing mortality? Think about it! Antibiotics, modern hygiene and public health measures, and vaccines have been responsible for preventing more deaths and arguably for saving more lives than virtually any other intervention, preventative or treatment, that science-based medicine has ever devised. What "inspired" me to revisit this topic was my coming across a couple of screeds against the germ theory of disease and Louis Pasteur that remind me just how much of "alt med" is permeated with germ theory denialism.
Before we get to the fun of the screeds, the first thing I should clarify is just what we mean by the "germ theory of disease." In most texts and sources that I've read, the germ theory of disease is stated something like, "Many diseases are caused by microorganisms." We could argue whether viruses count as microorganisms, but for purposes of the germ theory they do. (Most biologists do not consider viruses to be true living organisms, because they consist of nothing more than genetic material wrapped in a protein coat and lack the ability to reproduce without infecting the cell of an organism.) Now, let's take a look at the latest germ theory denialist idiocy I've come across. The first one, not surprisingly, I found on NaturalNews.com. Surprisingly, it was not written by Mike Adams, but rather by someone named Paul Fassa, who proclaims You have been lied to about germs. It should have been called "You are about to be lied to about germs."
First, though, since this article wasn't by the usual science-hating loon Mike Adams, I was curious just who Paul Fassa is. I had never heard of him before. It didn't take long to find Fassa's Twitter account and then from there his blog Health Maven, which bills itself as an "escape from the medical mafia matrix." Interesting. Why does it appear that any time I come across a germ theory denialist like Fassa, he's someone who uses terms like "medical mafia matrix"? I don't know, but such people also tend to write introductory paragraphs like this:
We have been taught to fear germs, pathogens, viruses, and bacteria that invade us from out there. This is the Pasteur model of disease contagion. This creates a dependency on Big Pharma to protect us from invading microbes, each having one form (monomorphic) and creating one specific disease.
Pasteur`s model of disease won over rival Claude Bernard`s more accurate argument of the inner terrain. Pasteur`s declaration, though serving the coffers of Big Pharma, creates more questions: How come some get a disease that`s going around and others don`t? How do all these new bugs come out of nowhere to haunt us? Why do vaccines and antibiotics ultimately fail and create super bugs?
These questions are answered by understanding the inner terrain and pleomorphism.
Note how Fassa first misrepresents the Pasteur model of disease. This is common among germ theory denialists, in my experience. They tend to assume that germ theory states that pathogenic microbes are 100% infectious and always cause disease. Consequently, when people are exposed to pathogenic microbes and don't become ill, people like Fassa point to that as evidence that germ theory is invalid. After all, the germ didn't cause disease, at least in this one case! That must mean that all of germ theory is wrong! Concrete thinking, thy name is Fassa (and other germ theory denialists.) It's rather odd that even most teenagers can understand that catching an infectious disease is dependent not just on the microbe but each person's resistance to that microbe. This is the same thing that mystifies HIV/AIDS denialists, who seem to view the observation that most exposures to HIV do not result in AIDS as some sort of devastating indictment of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Add to that a long asymptomatic period and highly variable rates of progression, and HIV/AIDS denialists, who are--let's face it--really nothing more than a subtype of germ theory denialists who deny vehemently that one particular germ causes disease have all the doubt they need.
But I digress.
Also notice Fassa's early and immediate invocation of the pharma shill gambit. If there's another thing about germ theory denialism, it's that those who cling to it tend to be extremely distrustful of big pharma. I realize that in many cases big pharma deserves a lot of mistrust; its record in many areas demands it. What distinguishes many of these germ theory denialists is that they take healthy skepticism and take it to a pathological extreme. They also seem to think that the reason that antibiotics ultimately fail is because germ theory is invalid, which reveals an incredible ignorance of how antibiotics work. Helloooo! Evolution? Ever heard of it? Bacteria are incredibly good at evolving under the selective pressure of antibiotics. That's what creates superbugs, that and our tendency to overuse antibiotics. But what is the "inner terrain" and pleomorphism? This is where we find the "intellectual" basis of rejection of germ theory. As is the case with many alt-med beliefs, this basis harkens back to "ancient" knowledge (or at least 150 year old knowledge). It harkens back to Antoine Béchamp, who did indeed postulate nearly the exact opposite of what Pasteur did: that microorganisms were not the cause of disease but rather the consequence of disease, that injured or diseased tissues produced them and that it was the health of the organism that mattered, not the microorganisms.
Basically, Béchamp's idea, known as the pleomorphic theory of disease, stated that bacteria change form (i.e., demonstrate pleomorphism) in response to disease, not as a cause of disease. In other words, they arise from tissues during disease states; they do not invade from the external world. Béchamp further proposed that bacteria arose from structures that he called microzymas, which to him referred to a class of enzymes. Béchamp postulated that microzymas are normally present in tissues and that their effects depended upon the cellular terrain. Ultimately, Pasteur's theory won out over that of Béchamp, based on evidence, but Béchamp was influential at the time. Given the science and technology of the time, Béchamp's hypothesis was not entirely unreasonable. It was, however, superseded by Pasteur's germ theory of disease and Koch's later work that resulted in Koch's postulates. What needs to be remembered is that not only did Béchamp's hypothesis fail to be confirmed by scientific evidence, but his idea lacked the explanatory and predictive power of Pasteur's theory. Fassa is sort of correct about one thing, though. Béchamp's idea was basically something like this:
The inner terrain includes our immune system, organ tissues, and blood cells. Those who stepped out of line from Pasteur`s dogma asserted that the inner terrain was more vital for remaining disease free than searching for new antibiotics and vaccines to kill bacteria and viruses.
As an analogy, flies don`t create garbage. But garbage attracts flies that breed maggots to create even more flies. Removing garbage is more effective than spraying toxic chemicals, which endanger human and animal life, around the house. Similarly, adding toxins to humans is not as effective as cleaning out the inner terrain.
As I said, there's a grain of truth there, namely that the condition of the body and a person's immune system does matter. Specifically, it is true that the condition of the "terrain" (the body) does matter when it comes to infectious disease. Debilitated people do not resist the invasion of microorganisms as well as strong, healthy people. Of course, another thing to remember is that the "terrain" can facilitate the harmful effect of microorganisms in unexpected ways. For example, certain strains of the flu (as in 1918 and H1N1) are more virulent in the young because the young mount a more vigorous immune response. However, latter day Béchamp worshipers fetishize this idea to the point of claiming that the "inner terrain" is all that matters and that bacteria and viruses are manifestations, not causes, of disease. It goes beyond that, though. According to Béchamp, it's said:
Blood is alive. It is not a liquid, but a mobile tissue (Béchamp was the first to describe blood thus). The things in our blood are alive. And one thing modern medicine does not accept is that something like a bacterium can change into a yeast that can turn into a fungus that can turn into a mold. We've talked about this in previous newsletters; it is called pleomorphism. Pleo meaning many and morph meaning form or body.
This is, of course, complete nonsense. Bacteria cannot change into yeast or vice-versa, while yeasts are organisms in the kingdom Fungi. Dimorphic fungi can exist as a mold/hyphal/filamentous form or as yeast, but this fact does not invalidate the germ theory of disease. Indeed, some of these fungi are pathogens, such as Blastomyces dermatitidis, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Sporothrix schenckii. The misunderstanding of microbiology required to accept the rejection of germ theory in favor of Béchamp's ideas is staggering. Yet they remain very influential. Not among scientists, of course. Science moved on a long time ago. Rather, they remain influential among cranks.
But why?
I think there are a couple of reasons. First, If it isn't bacteria or other microbes that cause infectious disease, then vaccines are not necessary. Although their rhetoric against vaccines is often cloaked in appeals to "strengthening the immune system" or similar words, much of it, when you strip away the obfuscation and come right down to it, often denies germ theory. Second, germ theory tells us that there are some things we cannot control, and alt-med is all about the illusion of control. Germs, after all, are scary. You can be perfectly healthy, and an infectious disease can strike you down--possibly even kill you--through no fault of your own. By denying that the germs are the cause of disease, germ theory denialists can tell themselves that if they just eat the right diet, do the right exercise regimen, take the right supplements, germs can't hurt them. Righteous living triumphs!
Too bad the real world isn't like that and infectious diseases can kill.
- Log in to post comments
Krebiozen,
Because you're dishonest, manipulative and opportunistic. You wouldn't actually say to people, "We're infecting your children right now with live measles virus because these creatures, and I mean your children do not deserve to be uninfected and we do not have evidence to suggest that your children had been infected or was infected with natural measles simply because we don't check for Ab titers beforehand. We just inject the virus. And besides once we've got your children infected with measles, there is a lesser chance of getting it again. Don't worry, it happens naturally so it shouldn't be so surprising either way (natural infection or inoculation). Of course, you will still have to pay us for the service if we think we have not infected your children long enough but that would be determined on the next re-infection visit. So no, neither we prevent nor protect your children from contracting measles infection, but rather we promote it vigorously ASAP", would you?
Measles is generally benign, self-limiting, and uncomplicated which is followed by lifelong immunity. Surprising? No.
Wow. Unbelievable. Modern Medicine needed eight years on how to figure out the meaning of "supportive care" in the management of measles. True enough, "Too many cooks spoil the broth"
Measles is generally benign, self-limiting, and uncomplicated which is followed by lifelong immunity. Surprising? No.
You shouldn't have allowed yourself to be cornered in this countable fashion, Th1Th2.
Kevin,
I'd like to know the other vaccines that were given prior to the diagnosis of autism.
@Tony:
If a person has acute or chronic exposure to a single environmental toxin, can that single cause lead to a disease, or does it take one or more other causes to enable them to be poisoned? Or is poisoning distinct from disease?
Do all clusters-and-progressions-of-symptoms have multiple possible causes, or just some? If just some, how do tell which ones?
1) Does this apply to all viruses? That is, are all viruses "alleged", and none have ever been isolated whole-and-direct?
2) What do you mean by "direct"? What would a direct means of virus isolation be?
3) Do you think that any viruses play any causal role in any diseases? Or are they the product of disease?
As far as I can tell, when you say this, you mean "A person in an optimal/perfect state of health will never become infected with germs, so if someone is infected with germs the scientists should figure out what caused the person to stray from the state of perfect health, rather than focusing on the germs". Is that what you mean?
If it is what you mean, you act as if "A person in an optimal/perfect state of health will never be infected by germs" should be the null hypothesis. Why should it be the null hypotheses?
That wasn't the sole means by which Native Americans were exposed to the smallpox virus. They could get it simply by being exposed to a European who was infected, and once one them had it they could spread it to others who had never met any Europeans. And our argument doesn't depend upon identifying Patient Zero among the Native Americans or identifying the exact means of exposure. The argument is:
1) For thousands of years, a certain cluster of symptoms named "smallpox" was present throughout the human world, except for in the Americas.
2) This cluster of symptoms started showing up among the Native Americans soon after they encountered Europeans. This doesn't necessarily indicate a single causative agent behind it, but if there's more than one cause it does indicate that the "straw that broke the camel's back" came over with the Europeans, and also indicates that the European brought cause is a necessary cause (that is, a necessary-but-not-sufficient cause).
3) This cluster of symptoms started showing up in Native Americans who had never encountered any Europeans, so whatever the cause (whether sole-cause or back-breaking-straw) has to be one that can spread, thus indicating a contagious etiology.
Thingy, I hate to waste an insult, so please read my #483, which is now out of moderation, and sputter imbecilities appropriately.
TVRBK,
You should be worried then since people like you always have the tendency of putting the cart before the horse. I'd say enjoy the ride then.
Seriously, have you ever seen a Vacutainer tube? Will somebody help this guy?
Yeah, Thingy, "Due Diligenceâ¢", that's the ticket. Those stupid Indians, dying in Michigan because a white man had set foot on the ground 1000 miles away, just weren't exercising Due Diligenceâ¢. They deserved to die! Stupid weaklings!
Here you go Tony, since you asked so nicely:
The Dark Side of Self-Affirmation: Confirmation Bias and Illusory Correlation in Response to Threatening
Information
DOI: 10.1177/0146167209337163
Now do you have some evidence for why you're a germ theory denialist or is it just because you're in a twit race?
Folks, do be careful of Th1Th2. She's deliberately obtuse, she lies, and she changes the definitions of words to suit herself (without telling you that's what she is doing). She consistently change your own words to make your argument sound more like what she wants you do say, and then she argues against this construct - a classic straw-man fallacy. If you wish to continue to talk to her, be aware of these personality quirks.
Your grasp of scientific principles is apparently as stunted as your grasp of punctuation. When you are making an extraordinary claim, it most certainly is your job to provide sources, and if you cannot recognize that claiming the absolute falsehood of a matter which medical science has regarded as settled fact since long before any of us in this discussion were even born is a very extraordinary claim, it only emphasizes that you are not on strong speaking terms with reality.
TBruce said,
I wonder if all military members are immediately cured of all ailments every time they go "At Ease."
Tony,
Just follow the vaccine and you will find out that germ theory is real. In short, garbage in, garbage out. The vaccine-type measles virus, like wild-type, is capable of causing measles encephalitis, meningitis, MIBE and SSPE in humans. Both can be isolated and are distinguishable from one another.
What do you mean? For example, you do not believe that tetanospasmin can paralyze humans?
Again, follow the vaccine. Pathogens are opportunistic like vaccinators who encounter every naive and defenseless children.
Tony,
Are you vaccinated? If so, then you've had the sample.
Morning Rev - See you are still evading the question.
Tony, the question is too stupid to answer. Surely this can't be new to youâit's mentioned in every history book on the Colonial era. Traders and even government agents handed out blankets infected with the smallpox virus to Indians whose land they wanted to seize. They did the same thing in Australia, as far as that goes.
You see, you have the luxury of denying that the smallpox virus causes smallpox because people who know better eliminated it in the wild for you. Funny thingâno more smallpox virus, no more smallpox. Uncanny, ain't it? Nothing about the human body suddenly changed so that it didn't experience this particular "dis-ease" any more. Only one thing changedâthey were no longer exposed to the smallpox virus. Hell of a coincidence, on your viewâcompletely predictable on a sane one.
Three continents full of people who had never experienced any such "dis-ease", then in every case, within a few months of the introduction of a virus previously confined to the Old World, they were being decimated by a new "dis-ease" they had never had before. Again, an incredible coincidence for you, totally predictable for everyone else.
Now you really need to have a discussion with Thingy. You think germs are nothing, and cause no problems, Thingy thinks all germs are equally bad, and have to be avoided by "due diligence"âi.e. a psychic power enabling one to spot those infected with those bad, bad germs. I'm going to make some popcorn and prepare to enjoy the show.
Mathew Cline - true both exogenous and endogenous toxins will cause disease under certain conditions that will vary from person to person. That will depend on a variety of factors including the person's constitution, vitality and the integrity of the organism's defences and organs of elimination. The dose needed to kill one person with arsenic depends on the precise conditions - it does not unconditionally kill - the dose has to be determined or otherwise 'excessive' that depends on the prevailing conditions of the case in question. I think you get the picture.
If you took a large dose of E.coli and the appropriate conditions were already present in a weakened and debilitated body you would probably develop gastoenteritis because the E.coli feeds off crap during the process of inflammation. But they are not THE cause of the gastro symptoms are they?
To pretend otherwise is to assign an autoeffectivty to E.coli implying that they can operate independently of any determinate conditions in the body and therefore do not depend on such conditions to produce any effect which is absurd by any standard. Its like saying we can exist independently of our natural environment and yet are still able to breathe air! This is what GT causal reductionism implies when it assigns to 'germs' a priviledged form of causality in theory and then tries to make out that such privileged causality is at work in the 'real'. This also involves reducing pathological phenomena that occur in the body with different causes to a single general cause and ageneral principle of explanation - 'the germ' whether it be an alleged 'pathogenic virus' or a bacterium. This means that there is no scientific way of accounting for the specificity of those pathological phenomena if they are all just so many different effects of the same single cause which they are all alleged to have in common. The essentialism of this position is also evident the germ is relegated to a 'cause imminent in its effects' surreptitiously ruling out all other causes. It has become the single privileged essence behind the pathological phenomena. They call it 'science' I have another word for it: 'specualtive philosophy'.
The Dark Side of Self-Affirmation: Confirmation Bias!
A great study, Dr Melanie Dreher is also a big fan of DOI: 10.1177/0146167209337163
Thank you JayK
OK Rev - I accept your handing out the blankets explanation.
What was the name of the scientist who claimed to have actually isolated the virus directly from the tissue of a smallpox victim and what method did he use to determine that it really was a smallpox virus? How did he prove that such a virus was the cause of smallpox outbreak in question?
I would appreciate a reply based on scientific evidence please.
Best regards.
Antaeus - no it is not my job to provide 'sources'. Have you not heard of an 'internal critique'. I criticise GT because I find it untenable as a scientific theory - the theory itself is incoherent what external 'sources' do I need to quote for you to understand that?.
Th1Th2 - Just follow the vaccine and you will find out that germ theory is real. In short, garbage in, garbage out. The vaccine-type measles virus, like wild-type, is capable of causing measles encephalitis, meningitis, MIBE and SSPE in humans. Both can be isolated and are distinguishable from one another.
I beg to differ on that one insofar as the vaccine-type measles virus, and 'wild-type'viruses are concerned. None of these viruses have been isolated as whole viruses from diseased humans to date. Exosomes - the particles released from cells that have been toxically stressed are erroneously thought to be those 'viruses'. Have a look at the way the CDC prepares a so-called measles virus 'isolate' which is not a whole isolated measles virus by the way.
@Th1Th2
Coming from someone as deeply confused as you, I'll take that as a compliment.
You suggest that the drop in global measles mortality is due to "due diligence" or "supportive care" in the management of measles". I wonder what the CDC, UNICEF and the World Health Organization have to say about that, let's see:
That must be "due diligence" I suppose. Did you ever explain how "due diligence" works with measles, which is highly contagious for four days before any diagnostic symptoms appear?
What do you think they mean by "measles control activities"? I can't see any reference to "due diligence" anywhere, just references to measles immunizations and appropriate clinical management of those with measles.
Th1Th2 you really do have a pathological and irrational fear of infection don't you? You seem to think it would be better for 11 million people to die, rather than deliberately infect them with an attenuated virus. Thank goodness you have nothing to do with formulating or implementing public health policy on this, and that no one sane takes you seriously.
So basically Fassa is saying that prevention is better than cure, so we should stop curing people... stunning. Painfully so in fact.
Somehow i'm betting that if Fassa finds out that evolution stomps on thier little "theory" then they will be asking "why are there are still monkeys" by the end of the day.
The sad fact is, that a lot of people simply lack any knowledge of how the world around them works, and fill the void by persecutory delusions - paranoia, conspiracy theories, denialism of the stuff they don't understand.
The results aren't pretty. In the best case they spend their entire adult life both unnecessarily scared and ignorant of real dangers, and in the worst case they end up as hapless, pawns of some real conspiracy just like the tea party serves Koch industries.
If we were made from dust, why do we still have dust?
Mix with water to make clay which can fix anything. You can even use it in place of Tip-ex.
Stick that vaccinepashmina in your clay pipe and smoke it.
Tony,
You are arguing from a false premise. There are pathogens that will make even the healthiest person sick. Pathogens do not require diseased tissue to cause illness, this is a false idea that is common at the nuttier end of the CAM spectrum.
E. coli serotype O157:H7 produces toxins that damage the gut lining. Fewer than 700 organisms ingested in food can cause illness. The very young and the very old are worst affected, but even healthy young people are made ill by this organism.
E. coli, a strain of which is causing deaths in otherwise healthy people in Europe at present, is only one example of many, many pathogens that can make healthy people ill. To suggest otherwise, particularly without a scrap of evidence, is just silly.
The claim that pathogens only cause disease in "in a weakened and debilitated body" seems to be the basis of your claim that germ theory is "untenable as a scientific theory", and it is erroneous.
[N]o one sane takes you seriously.
The old "actions speak louder than words" trope sounds so childish, but I'll bring it out anyway. Replying to someone - especially repeatedly - shows them you take them seriously enough to do so. Please consider this in deciding whether or not to comment on other comments/commenters.
Shorter: Don't feed the trolls.
Bullshit.
@Tony:
Now I'm impressed - at what a clueless narcissist you are. "Internal critique", my ass. Never mind all the scientists, microbiologists, doctors and other medical professionals, as well as all the non-medical people who understand Germ Theory and find it perfectly coherent. You think that Germ Theory is incoherent, therefore it is disproven. QED.
How's the weather on your planet?
TBruce,
You are dishonest, manipulative and opportunistic.
Tony,
What goes around comes around. Follow the vaccine.
On #527: Unlike Th1Th2, I actually bothered to read the abstract, which noted a single isolated case, far rarer than the cases caused by the wild virus, which, as the abstract noted, was nearly eradicated by vaccination.
Hmm, which should I take more seriously, two case histories with a sample size of one each, one from 1997 and one from 1999, or "a review of published and unpublished data of the impact of measles immunization on the epidemiology of SSPE and examined epidemiological evidence on whether there was any vaccine associated risk" published in 2005.
Ever hear of projection?
T Bruce - dear chap. What's wrong with the argument never mind the other scientists, microbiologists etc who make all sorts of weird and wonderful claims about germ theory. How long have you been in the Skinner Box my fiend? Start thinking for yourself and go beyond the mainstream brainwashing.
Well, yes. Science often works like this. We make a discovery and it shines a bit more light on the world so we realise there are many more things to be investigated. It's a bit like castigating the fossil record because every time we find a "missing link" it creates two more, and arguing on that basis that special creation is better because it gives all the answers.
Oh for cripes sake, shut down Thingy now; stop feeding this troll. Regarding SSPE:
"All of the genetic analyses of viral material from brain tissue of SSPE have revealed sequences of wild type virus, never vaccine virus....."
(CDC Measles Complications-August 31, 2009)
Tony why is it when a mouse has 10^7 C. perfringens injected into its leg muscle it gets gangrene but if you inject saline (or B. subtilis, or 10^3 cells or a phospholipase mutant of C. perfringens) into the same spot gangrene doesn't develop?
From that gangrene infection why can the same cells be isolated that were used to infect it? This isn't an abstract Koch's postulates question. That's actual observed experimental data.
Th1Th2 - Shows how much you know about virus isolation. What is stated in this paper is pure BS quote:
"The presence of measles virus in the brain tissue was confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.."
Indeed it was NOT. Alleged pathogenic viruses including 'measles' cannot be confirmed by the PCR method. This method was never intended to do that. Who says it can't? Why, the very inventor of the method himself the Nobel laureate Dr Kary Banks Mullis. Don't believe me go ask him if you want the primary reference source.
One thing I wonder is why Tony and Fassa think they're the first to criticize germ theory. They seem to believe that germ theory gained acceptance not through demonstration of it accuracy, but because of the backing of large corporate money. This makes no sense historically, patent medicines were the big business of the 19th century, and they were mostly alcohol. When it was learned that antibiotics could pull people dying from consumption from the brink of death, that did not bode well for the old ways.
Krebiozen,
Until 4 days after the rash appears and that women should NOT receive measles vaccine if they are pregnant or planning to become pregnant within 1 to 3 months. Infectious? Yes. Due diligence? Absolutely. You? Ignorant.
It means their infection-promoting agenda is working. The uninfected and naive are being infected intentionally. Unfortunately, by due diligence does not pertain to a willful infection-promoter like you and the rest of vaccination activities. It's the opposite hence you wouldn't find any.
It would be better if they were not infected. Worse if they were treated in the hands of incompetent doctors. How fortunate are the uninfected. Their parents MUST be smart.
JohnV - can you post all the experimental details in full? Has the experiment been repeated? If so by whom and under what conditions? I might then be able to answer the question without being blidfolded.
I do think for myself. I, myself, think that you are delusional.
Gray Falcon - Yes Gray its all about money -those who own the gold make the rules. And the current rule is Germ theory which is now more like a religion - so that makes me an heretic and my adversaries would love to burn me at the stake! However, up to now there's not much evidence being turfed up for GT but a lot of insults and innuendo. I wonder what has happened to the genuine truth seeking scientists?
Th1Th2 @537: Try again, and answer the questions honestly and completely.Tony @540: If it were really about money, we'd all still be using patent remedies.
Tony,
Alleged? The isolated virus was identical to that of the parental measles virus they initially isolated from the lab in the vaccine production. The pathogen was known beforehand. As far as the evidence of the measles virus is concerned, the vaccinee received it and was subsequently recovered post-mortem. So what are you denying then?
TBruce - Here we go again. How does questioning an untenable theory, sorry religion, like GT warrant the conclusion that I am delusional? Heretic may be! In this context I think you have gone a bit OTT with that description unless you have been reading the DSM-III manual that you probably have stashed away somewhere
Krebiozen,
That's my answer. Honestly, I don't know how I'm going to add the naive and uninfected to the list of casualties, do you?
Tony I can post the details, what would you like to know? There might be a slight delay as the lab notebooks remain the property of my old lab. Roughly: mice were anesthetized and injected with a pain killer. 2-3 hours later they were again anesthetized and injected with the bacteria or sterile saline in the right hind leg calf muscle.
And course it's been repeated. The first reference for C. perfringens causing gangrene is 1892 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital (1). More recently C. perfringens has been shown to cause gangrene in publications by many groups (2-4). Of course, these publications weren't being done to prove C. perfringens causes gangrene, that is already accepted by everyone and has been for 120 years.
Also worth noting my amusement as you requiring citations and full details but you refuse to provide any yourself. "Go ask this guy" is not a citation.
Citations:
1: Welch, W. H., G.H.F. Nuttall. 1892. A Gas Producing Bacillus (Bacillus aerogenes capsulatus, nov. spec.) Capable of Rapid Development in the Blood-Vessels After Death. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital III:81-91.
2: O'Brien DK, Therit BH, Woodman ME, Melville SB.
The role of neutrophils and monocytic cells in controlling the initiation of Clostridium perfringens gas gangrene. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2007 Jun;50(1):86-93. Epub 2007 Apr 11.
3: Stevens DL, Titball RW, Jepson M, Bayer CR, Hayes-Schroer SM, Bryant AE. Immunization with the C-Domain of alpha -Toxin prevents lethal infection, localizes tissue injury, and promotes host response to challenge with Clostridium perfringens. J Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 15;190(4):767-73. Epub 2004 Jul 19.
4: Awad MM, Ellemor DM, Boyd RL, Emmins JJ, Rood JI.
Synergistic effects of alpha-toxin and perfringolysin O in Clostridium perfringens-mediated gas gangrene. Infect Immun. 2001 Dec;69(12):7904-10.
It suggests you're delusional because you haven't been able to provide one single shred of evidence or argument supporting your position, while completely ignoring the mountains of evidence against it. Myself I wouldn't go to delusional; just completely incapable (or perhaps simply unwilling) of rational thought, in favor of slavish acceptance of whatever anti-establishment BS happens to fit your prejudices.
Denying germ theory at this point is effectively equivalent to insisting that you dropped a rock and it fell up.
Tony,
Hence, the challenge. You vs tetanospasmin. Let's see how the evidence works it's way.
Sorry to those who object to troll-feeding. I find it amusing, educational and hard to resist. I once gave a lecture about HIV denialism to medical scientists at a hospital and it proved to be a great learning tool, getting people to ask questions about how we know what we think we know.
@Th1Th2 - you still haven't explained how you can avoid getting infected with measles without being vaccinated. If you go out into the world, get an education, work and socialize with people, you will be exposed to the virus and you will get measles. Unless everyone else has been vaccinated and you leech off herd immunity, of course.
That person with a sniffle next to you in the store may be exhaling millions of highly contagious measles viruses that you cannot help inhaling. Do you suggest everyone should walk around in a plastic bubble? How would that work in Africa or Asia?
Please explain precisely how "due diligence" works to prevent measles infection.
@Tony - your claim that germ theory is untenable is based on the false premise that pathogens can only infect diseased tissue. I have a comment in moderation that explains this. You are clearly either deeply ignorant about microbiology and immunology, or delusional. Sorry, but I don't see a third possibility.
BTW Kary Mullis objected to the use of PCR to quantify the amount of HIV in the blood, which is done using a variant of PCR. He designed PCR precisely to confirm the presence of small quantities of DNA, such as viral DNA.
@ Krebiozen ; Hurray for you - fighting the good fight for HIV/AIDS realism! Kalichman ( J.AIDS & Behav; 2010) showed how the claims of the denialists filtre down to affect the public, as in the attitudes of young gay men, who are likely to be sexually active.
Guess what? I'm not the lowest common denominator!
No, little man, you're lower.
My comment is also in moderation :(
@Tony:
Burn you at the stake? Nahh, what a waste of good wood.
I'll just stick to pointing and laughing.
GodTM wanted them to be sick to make them stronger.
It's all that stealth training they get in Bug SchoolTM.
Y iz dare stil munkeez?
Krebiozen,
Well, that's one way on how to avoid the measles, "without being vaccinated"
Where's the virus?
The herd did not avoid the virus, on the contrary, they were the first to have received it, so what's the point? The uninfected still remain uninfected.
I have to doubt it's measles unless there is evidence to suggest but it's nice to know some signs and symptoms regardless in order to avoid prolonged unnecessary exposure. Of course, you wouldn't doubt measles vaccines contain live infectious measles virus and you're willfully allowing yourself to get infected, would you?
No. I suggest everyone to avoid the measles.
Fix your own house first.
@Tony: Post your data the proves that germ theory is incorrect or flawed. If he can't do that, I suggest everyone just ignore this thread from now on.
@Th1Th2
How? In a world in which no one is vaccinated, the one that you advocate, how do we avoid getting measles? How? Specifically how? Practically speaking how?
If you evade the question or answer with word salad again, I will have to agree with other people here who suggest you are suffering from serious mental health problems.
@Tony - please read my comment #526 which has just cleared moderation. If you can't reply in some coherent manner, I'm with JayK.
OK, Tonyâ"dis-ease" is caused by the body being in a weakened and debilitated state. Germs just feed on the decay products of this dis-ease process. Fine. Thank you for the insight!
Nowâexplain why you had North and South America, two continents completely full of people who had never, ever, in 12,000 years, been "weakened or debilitated" in precisely the manner required to lead to this particular suite of symptoms. They suddenly acquired the ability to be "weakened and debilitated" in this new fashion so as to die like flies at the very moment when new people infected with a certain virus set foot on their continent. "Hive mind" in action? "Oh. say! That new way of suffering and dying looks like fun! Think I'll try it!"
Then explain why all of a sudden, people in North America lost the predisposition to be "weakened and debilitated" in that precise manner in 1949, or worldwide in 1977, again at the exact moment the virus was eliminated from the wild. Nobody had been "weakened and debilitated" just right so that they suffered the suite of symptoms we call smallpox. All of a sudden, they start being "weakened and debilitated" just right, and start dying in droves. Then centuries later, the human body stops being predisposed to this exact form of weakening and debilitationâquite suddenly. Both of these inexplicable changes in the predispositions of the human body happen to coincide exactly in time with the introduction and removal of a certain virus. Tell us how and why these extraordinary coincidences took place. We await your wisdom.
Krebiozen - You'll probably be with JayK anyway no matter how I reply! However,I'm getting the impression on this blog that nobody is really interested in what I have to say because most of the responses are indicative of not being able to understand or comprehend what I have said. You imply that I'm incoherent, Th1 Th2 has opted for the 'agreement with others' routine, if I don't answer a question with an agreement that vaccination isn't a problem. TBruce refuses to burn me at the stake and would rather point and laugh but also says little about arguments put forth regarding GT.Beamup obviously can't read and accuses me of not presenting an argument and thinks I'm delusional!
If I try to answer all the questions put to me by the piranhas on the blog I'll be here till next christmas!It's also a question of whether what I say will
be accepted even if it is correct. Krebiozen read this again:
If you took a large dose of E.coli and the appropriate conditions were already present in a weakened and debilitated body you would probably develop gastoenteritis because the E.coli feeds off crap during the process of inflammation. But they are not THE cause of the gastro symptoms are they?
To pretend otherwise is to assign an autoeffectivty to E.coli implying that they can operate independently of any determinate conditions in the body and therefore do not depend on such conditions to produce any effect which is absurd by any standard. Its like saying we can exist independently of our natural environment and yet are still able to breathe air!
E.coli exist in our gastrointestinal tract anyway do they not? And they do not cause disease. The body does not have to be 'weak or debilitated' - I used that as an example to make a point. Insofar as E.coli is concerned whatever 'strain'is posited to act in the body presupposes certain means of action and the outcome or effect that the E.coli may have will always depend upon the determinate conditions that prevail in the body in question. Change the conditions and you change the action of E.coli.It would appear from what you have stated that the toxins which the bacteria produce rather than the bacteria per se are significant and also the particular conditions on which the bacteria depend to be able to produce those toxins.If the bacteria have been genetically tinkered with we have a different ball game altogether.
Tony,
We'd be interested in what you had to say if you had any, as it were, evidence for anything you said. If you have evidence for why an otherwise healthy animal will catch, say, anthrax only when exposed to anthrax and will spread anthrax to other otherwise healthy animals, we'd be glad to review and evaluate it. If it's strong enough, it could even change the course of biology and medical research.
If your only contribution is to say that sometimes people are exposed to germs and don't get sick - well, yeah. I would attribute that in part to luck, a healthy immune system response, competition with other microbes, and other factors.
Krebiozen,
In order to avoid the measles, you need to avoid getting the pathogen. So where is the pathogen? 1. In the measles vaccines 2. Infectious individuals.
Funny. You professed to be a real infection-promoter and now you're disavowing. Are you getting confused and desperate now? Read back #556 and there you will find 2 ways on how to avoid measles infection.
You might notice that I specifically said I DON'T think you're delusional. You might also notice that in 562 comments you have signally failed to provide a single shred of actual evidence! So no, you indeed have NOT presented any argument. You have made an unsubstantiated claim.
JohnV - Thank you for taking an interest. You state that:
Tony I can post the details, what would you like to know? There might be a slight delay as the lab notebooks remain the property of my old lab. Roughly: mice were anesthetized and injected with a pain killer. 2-3 hours later they were again anesthetized and injected with the bacteria or sterile saline in the right hind leg calf muscle.
And course it's been repeated. The first reference for C. perfringens causing gangrene is 1892 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital (1). More recently C. perfringens has been shown to cause gangrene in publications by many groups (2-4). Of course, these publications weren't being done to prove C. perfringens causes gangrene, that is already accepted by everyone and has been for 120 years.
Also worth noting my amusement as you requiring citations and full details but you refuse to provide any yourself. "Go ask this guy" is not a citation.
John you are obviously used to the conventional scientific way of doing things and go by 'the book' or rather the 'citations'. I do not, I must admit because usually there's nothing to cite which may seem rather strange, particularly where GT is concerned. 'Go ask this guy' ironically might be the best thing one can do in this type of situation. Why? Try for example, to get hold of primary reference sources claiming to have isolated any whole pathogenic virus by a direct method (not indirect methods such as PCR or 'antibody tests') and you will (hopefully) understand what I'm getting at. We have tried asking top scientists for such evidence none has ever been forthcoming to date. That has led me to suspect that GT really is a bogus theory and there is much more to the situation than meets the eye. That's why I keep asking those who support GT for all the evidence and believe that the burden of proof is upon them not me. Are the references that you have provided on C. perfringens easily accessible via the net that detail the work?
Best regards.
Tony,
How did you know they did not cause the symptoms? Look, you're arguing from ignorance and that is not acceptable.
Which particular E. coli are you referring to? You're generalizing which makes your assertions flawed.
Tony@565, here's some advice. Don't demand impossible standards of evidence from scientists if you won't even try to back up your own statements.
Tony, for the citations I provided, 2-4 are freely accessible via pubmed. The citation from 1892 is not, but I have a PDF of the journal article which I acquired through inter library loan which I could email if necessary.
Also, your above statement about E. coli:
"E.coli exist in our gastrointestinal tract anyway do they not? And they do not cause disease"
fails to consider that E. coli is a very genetically heterogeneous species. The species has a very large pan-genome, and the accessory genome makes up a good sized chunk of that. In other words, any given strain may or may not look particularly similar to another strain of the same species.
Tony,
I do not agree with the vaccinators. They are the worst germ-denialists. Most often, they are protean. You're actually riding with them on the same boat riddled with holes in the middle of the ocean.
Krebiozen writes:
Sorry to those who object to troll-feeding.
It was just a suggestion. :-)
I find it amusing,
Hmm - Three Stooges, Marx Brothers, Animal House, Richard Pryor, yep. Trolls, not so much. Matter of taste, I suppose.
educational
Why yes, I note the salutary effect on those with whom you're conversing and the rest of us. (I'm sure I note it, just can't seem to find it at the moment, sure it was around here somewhere, just wait a sec, be right with you....)
and hard to resist.
Think of me as Step 1 in your personal 12-step program.... ;-)
Krebiozen,
Follow the vaccine.
@Tony
Oh dear. You did read #526 I suppose? Maybe resorting to an analogy might help, though I somehow doubt it.
Burglaries are not caused by burglars. For years experts in criminal justice have been brainwashing people into believing in burglar theory: the theory that burglars cause burglaries. The obvious truth is that not every house gets burgled, it depends on whether the house has a burglar alarm, how good its locks are and what other security measures are in place. It is the condition of a home that determines if it is burgled or not, not a so-called burglar.
Burglar theory causal reductionism assigns to 'burglars' a privileged form of causality in theory and then tries to make out that such privileged causality is at work in the 'real'. This also involves reducing thefts that occur in the home with different causes to a single general cause and a general principle of explanation - 'the burglar'.
If a large number of desperate drug-addicted burglars were present in a neighborhood and the appropriate conditions were already present in your home with no alarm and poor locks you would probably be burgled because burglars steal valuables that they find during the course of a burglary. But they are not THE cause of the burglary are they?
Burglars do bring crowbars and sledgehammers with them and use them to break down doors, but it's the crowbars and sledgehammers that are significant, not the burglars per se.
And so on and so forth... Drivel isn't it?
Here's Tony now:
And here's Tony from his first appearance:
That's not an 'internal critique,' that's the proposal of an alternate hypothesis. Â If you want to claim that this alternate hypothesis is even close to being as logical and consistent an explanation of the evidence as germ theory, the burden is on you to make your case for that claim.
It would also help you if you had an accurate understanding of what germ theory is and isn't, which you don't seem to have. Â When you claim that germ theory considers pathogenic organisms to be a necessary cause of certain diseases, you are correct: Â no one can contract smallpox, for example, if they are not exposed to smallpox viruses. Â But when you claim that germ theory regards the pathogenic organism as a sufficient cause of disease in all cases, you are wasting your energy wrestling with a straw man. Â I would guess it's easier for you to believe that such a claim is part of germ theory, because then you can believe that you've debunked germ theory every time you find an exception, but in reality, you're still arguing with imaginary people and their positions, rather than the real thing. Â (I can't help wondering whether you'd actually sound any goofier if you were arguing against 'bullet theory.' Â "According to all you sheeple who have been brainwashed by Big Gun Safety, everyone who gets hit by a bullet will die! Â Well, guess what? Â I can show you a case of someone who got hit by a bullet and didn't die! Â This proves that bullets have actually never killed people; instead, when people mistreat their bodies, their general unhealth causes 'bullet wounds' which then grow bullets! Â The notion that the bullets come from outside is preposterous!")
@Th1Th2
1. There is no wild measles virus in the vaccine. 2. How can you tell that someone is contagious (very, very contagious) when it is 4 days before they or anyone else knows they have the disease?
I am an infection promoter. I promote infection with the attenuated measles virus which kills no one, to protect people from the wild measles virus which still kills over 100,000 people every year.
Projecting again?
You mean don't get vaccinated, and "avoid getting infected". Very practical. How long can you hold your breath for when you are in a crowd? Or should everyone live in a log cabin in the mountains?
@Jud
I've learned a lot, even if no one else has. What's step 2?
Thingy's been very clear: "Don't get infected" means A: "Don't get vaccinated" and 2: Uhhh..."Don't breathe", I guess.
Reminds me of what my Mom would tell me when I was a kid and our breath would fog up the car windows: "Practice not breathing." As in, "Someday it'll come in handy."
Of course, she'd also yell at anybody who honked their horn at her: "Blow your nose, you'll get more out of it." So I guess she was a disease promoter as well.
Krebiozen,
Just as I expected. Vaccinators are the worst germ denialist, hands down, no contest. Too much bad acting that deserves an award. You said "There is no wild measles virus in the vaccine" and yet somehow you managed to "promote infection" by vaccinating. Did you just happen to be born yesterday?
How do they know they have the disease?
Too bad you're still arguing from ignorance despite documented evidence to suggest otherwise.
Effortless.
So what would happen if you're in a crowd? The same thing you would do if someone passes gas.
That's a good vacation house though.
@Tony:
Okay, but when a person who already sickly is exposed to too much arsenic and dies, a doctor is going to say that they died of arsenic poisoning, not "the combination of being sickly and exposure to arsenic lead to death". But, this doesn't mean that doctors think that the lethal dose of arsenic is the same for everyone, and that there are no factors that can increase or decrease a person's tolerance to arsenic. Similarly, when a doctor or scientist says that tuberculosis is caused by mycobacteria, that doesn't mean they think that mycobacteria is mono-causal.
1) While there are many types of viruses that bud off from the cell in a manner similar to exosomes, there are also many that don't, and consist solely of the viral genome surrounded by a protein coating (capsid). Exosome-like viruses are called enveloped viruses.
2) Exosomes contain mRNA (messenger RNA), while viruses don't.
3) Except for retroviruses, the genes found in viruses are almost entirely (or entirely) not found in the host organism.
4) Except for retroviruses, many of the proteins found in viruses have no corresponding genes in the host which encode for them.
5) When a virus has a protein which has no corresponding gene in the host, the corresponding gene is found in the virus.
6) Many viruses have a surface protein, with no corresponding host gene, which binds to a cellular surface protein found in their host.
What, exactly, is wrong with the way scientists currently do virus isolation, and how does it lead them to mistaking exosomes for viruses? Don't just tell us to look and say its obvious.
Different variants of E. coli have different genes. O157:H7 has genes for producing a particular type of toxin, genes which normal E. coli gut flora lack. Normal gut flora isn't going to spontaneously develop the genes for producing that toxin just because gut/bodily conditions have changed.
Why put "strain" in scare quotes? Do you claim that, within a species of bacteria, there aren't different groups with different sets of genes?
@Th1Th2
So you are claiming that there is wild measles virus in the vaccine, that there is documented evidence that either the measles vaccine kills, or that the wild virus doesn't, and that you are able to smell measles virus when you are in crowds, and can avoid infection by holding your nose. Utterly bonkers. Oh and:
They don't until 4 days after they have coughed or sneezed wild measles viruses all over you and your unvaccinated child at the store. Then they get a rash, and a week or two later there is news of another outbreak of measles, you start to feel unwell and your child develops a cough. If you are lucky you will have to take some time off work and your child will miss some schooling. If you're not lucky, it's pneumonia, encephalitis or death.
Oh my God, this is getting old. Why are you guys still engaging Thingy? Isn't it patently obvious by now that she suffers from a severe mental illness? The circular delusions, redefining reality on the fly, come on. Does anyone has a DSM handy?
Excuse me, I have to go have a vodka-tonic now. Intravenously.
krebiozen,
The measles virus, you continuously deny that exists in the vaccine, are derived from parental wild-type measles virus to make it commercially available and accessible for an avid consumer and infection-promoter like you. The type of infection it causes is distinguishable from the wild-type hence it is referred to as vaccine-type. Therefore, there are two ways for you to promote infection, through natural infection and vaccination. You chose the latter as we all know.
Check #530
So would the virus able to kill naive and uninfected when they are miles away from infectious sources (outbreak and vaccines) or you want them to go near the source, get infected and then drop dead?
Have you lost that instinct to cover your nose and mouth whenever someone coughs or sneezes regardless if its measles?
I'm right. You've lost it.
I can sense some bad parenting here. Remember due diligence.
So when are you going to put the cart before the horse?
@ Stu: I'm already ahead of you on the vodka-tonic.
Thingy is a psychiatrist's dream come true...I'd love to see the case notes from all the mental health professionals that have ever attempted to treat him/her/it.
Notice how the Thing cherry picks old citations and is totally oblivious to recent research from the CDC and the WHO. A mass of multiple fixations for this high school dropout.
Thingy needs to get some medication, needs to get some basic science courses under his/her/its belt. Thingy needs to apply at a university or the CDC or the WHO as I'm sure they would be interested in his/her/its unique germ theories, immunology theories and disease epidemiology theories.
Just an ignorant masochistic troll getting it's jollies by being contrary and getting trashed each and every time it posts....pathetic.
Quoting myself:
While they won't spontaneously develop such genes, they might acquire them via being infected by a bacteria-targeting virus (phage). Interesting.
lilady, the way you carry on with me, you are halfway to thingy yourself?.
Take a look at yourself girl! There's a line.
You are claiming that I am claiming something I did not say, and then saying I am faking it, all in your own writing? What a fruit cake you are!
I just get a kick out of seeing what the next page of Thingy's "Cliché-a-Day Calendarâ¢" has on it. For a while it was something about barking and trees, now it's carts and horses.... She shows no understanding of even what these lame old sayings mean, so reaching her with scientific arguments is pretty unlikely.
The Very Reverend Bull-Axe,
You: "wild-type infections is a damn good idea, because we don't want to die of a preventable disease."
Krebiozen: "Then they get a rash,[...]cough[...]time off work[...]miss some schooling."
So how's the horse in the rear view mirror?
Thingy, my entire sentence was this:
You failed to quote the bold part. Can your brain not process an entire sentence at once or are you just a dishonest little $hit? (Trying to avoid moderation with that last word.)
I'm still trying to get my head around Th1Th2's moral incompetence. It's like he doesn't even understand the concept of honesty.
Gray Falcon:
It occurred to me that s/he/it is a liar a while ago. I mentioned it here and here. The best way to deal with Thingy is to point out her egregious behavior on a thread to new comers and warn them not to engage. She is a troll and not worth your time.
Though it would have been amusing to see her and Tony go at it without any outside help.
The Reverend Bull,
You don't get it do you? My point is that you have depicted measles infection as an automatic death penalty when it's not. Hence, you've put the cart before the horse. And since, you're a devout infection-promoter, you're not in the position to discuss death prevention to someone who does not carry the risk. You're a fear monger to say the least. Learn how to prevent the infection first (which, of course, is not your goal) and then you can talk about death prevention. Otherwise, you're just barking up the wrong tree again.
Chris,
Would you consider yourself as an infection-promoter just like what Krebiozen, The Very Reverend, and Gray had professed?
Let them know you're not a liar.
Again with carts and horses and barking and trees. If you can't understand the meaning of these clichés, stop using them.
So measles only kills 1 or 2 out of 1000âso what? I don't need the vaccine, I had measles before there was one. Avoiding the chance of going through a miserable experience like that, with the risk of permanent injury or death as well would be, as I said, a damn good thing. Death is not the only undesirable outcome of measles. Why not avoid all of them if you can?
Yes, there may be a few documented cases of undesirable reactions to vaccines. They're so rare that they may be coincidences, who knows? Certainly if you drive your kid to get a vaccination, the riskiest part of the procedure was the driveâby orders of magnitude, probably.
I know you're completely innumerate, Thingy, but one chance in a million of undesirable consequences is better than a few chances in a thousand. But then you would have been against vaccination for smallpox, which killed one in 3. It has nothing to do with risk, nothing to do with reducing suffering or injury or death (well over 100,000/yr. worldwide for measles), it's all about maintaining the "Purity" of your Precious Bodily Fluidsâ¢".
Guess what, General Ripper, the rest of us don't give a hoot in Hell about the Purity of our Precious Bodily Fluids, because we live on Earth. We know there's no such thing to begin with, that being healthy and/or alive is better than being "Pure", and we're not...well...insane, like you are.
Learn how to prevent the infection first (which, of course, is not your goal) and then you can talk about death prevention.
You're pretty sorry when cornered, Th1Th2.
Narad:
Which is pretty much every time she decides to comment here!
Mathew good points - I'll get back to you when I can on some of the points you make about mine and attempt to expand a bit further.
Rev,
That's why there are BD Vacutainer® Blood Collection Tubes to maintain the "Purity" of your Precious Bodily Fluidsâ¢" and protect them from pathogens. Stop acting like a religious person. We're talking Science, bro.
Antaeus-OK. Why then is GT presented to the public in a form that is reinforced by the media âas ifâ the alleged pathogenic organism in question is a sufficient cause of disease in all cases? Ask anybody what causes disease or infection and germs come up trumps every time. Further the scientific literature in general also presents the case âas ifâ a particular micro-organism is the sole cause of a particular disease when it is not. Iâm saying that if microorganisms do in fact play a role in disease causation they alone cannot be the single cause of the particular disease in question - but that is never made clear.
To pretend otherwise would be to imply that the alleged pathogen in question can work âall by itselfâ independently of any determinate conditions. Any specific microorganism will always depend on definite means and conditions of action. Thus, whatever specific effect a particular microorganism will have in a particular biological organism will always depend on the specific conditions that prevail at the time in the organism in question. And those conditions are not in the hands of any alleged pathogen.
Microorganisms that are held to be âpathogenicâ do not function like bullets - the analogy you use is therefore false. Suggest you come to terms with the Lacanian concepts of the symbolic the imaginary and the real before you slag me off again about arguing with imaginary people. Nevertheless, thank you for your time and trouble to respond.
Rev,
Like you understand what an infection-promoter is, right?
Yeah so what? As if the uninfected will die the same. I hear you barking again.
Tell more about your near-death experience.
You've had the measles, so that means you'll avoid getting re-infected by the far more dangerous wild-type measles virus that kills people right? But wait, you have already been exposed to the far more dangerous wild-type measles virus that kills people so how did you avoid getting killed?
Trans: I don't care. I'll just ignore them.
The riskiest part is if you let the kid drive. Booo.
The record shows 0 complication 0 death for the uninfected.
That's vaccination for vaccinia.
It's all about exercising due diligence.
Thingy, you are the most complete and utter imbecile I've ever encountered.
I avoided getting killed like you avoid getting killed in Russian Roulette if the hammer drops on an empty chamberâbut here's a thought! Not playing Russian Roulette is safer yet!
Noâtrans: I'd rather play Russian Roulette with a revolver with many million chambers than one with a couple of hundred.
Every time you get in a car in the United States you stand about one chance in a million of getting killed. I would say "You do the math", but we all know you're incapable of doing so.
Yes, the first vaccinations were with vaccinia virus. What's your point? They carried very low risk, and protected you from a disease that killed one in three. Before that, they inoculated people with pus from smallpox pustules to actually give them the disease, but only about 10% died instead of 30%âand they were happy to do it! You know why, Thingy? Because unlike you, they were capable of doing simple arithmetic.
Thingy, I know you think you have some kind of psychic power that allows you to spot germs coming at you and somehow avoid them, but you are completely, absolutely, 100% wrong !! 90 to 95% of children used to get measles at some point. You think their parents weren't exercising "due diligence"? They were scared of measles. They had seen people die of measles, they had seen people blinded by measles, they had seen people permanently damaged, physically and mentally by measles. If the ability to spot asymptomatically infected people and avoid breathing anywhere near them, that you think you have, really existed, don't you think they would have exercised it? Face it, there is no such ability. You don't have it, I don't have it, nobody has it. Period.
And from farther back:
This is absolutely demented. I have no idea what in the Hell you think you mean by this. Seriously, you need to seek some kind of professional help, because trust me, you are out of your freakin' mind!
Rev,
Guess what Rev, you're wrong. People do care about the Purity of our Precious Bodily Fluids. Phlebotomists care about their blood specimen. Surgeons care about pericardial, pleural and peritoneal fluids. Neurologists care about CSF samples. Perinatologists care about amniotic fluids. When you undergo arthrocentesis to remove your synovial fluid, maintaining sterility is of utmost concern. And these people also live on Earth.
You were born sterile unless you can prove it otherwise.
I'm not religious so I'm not insane.
@The Very Rev: well, BD Vacutainer (tm) tubes are what labs use here to draw bloodwork. So yes, they protect the blood drawn out of your body so that the test results are as accurate as possible. But unless Thingy keeps all his/her/its blood in vacutainers, I'm baffled too. But then, I have Thingy killfiled.
May killfile Tony too. He's getting tedious.
I have processed blood culture samples, pericardial, pleural, peritoneal fluids, CSF, amniotic fluid and synovial fluid samples and it's true, it is very important to prevent contamination if the samples are going to be cultured. That's not because they are sterile, but because you want the pathogen in the patient to culture, not one of the many random bacteria or fungal spores that could get in from the air.
Born sterile after passing down a sterile birth canal, and taking a first breath full of sterile air that has never been in anyone's lungs? What a strange planet you live on.
A strange planet indeed...
That's it. I'm signing up for Jud's 12-step program. These exchanges with Th1Th2 always start out like a reasonable discussion, but sooner or later, usually when pressed to explain exactly how "due diligence" can prevent infection, she starts babbling irrelevant word salad and claiming an intellectual victory.
@Tony
You don't seem to have responded to me at all. I'm slightly disappointed.
Philosophy isn't going to cut it here. We are talking about real viruses that have been isolated, photographed, even created in the laboratory, and that make animals sick when they are injected into them.
You asked earlier:
One example is Janet Parker who was (hopefully) the last person to die of smallpox. The virus was identified using electron microscopy in fluid from her rash, though I don't know the name of the scientists who did this. She died of smallpox and worked in an office above a laboratory where smallpox was being studied. Since smallpox had been eradicated in the wild, certainly in England by 1978, it seems reasonable to assume she had caught the disease from the lab downstairs.
There is a picture of a smallpox virion from a human skin lesion near the bottom of this page:
There's more than anyone could possibly wish to know about the smallpox virus at this always useful website.
Because when we are talking about the effect of pathogenic organisms on a general population, the law of large numbers comes into play. Â Even though the chance of any one individual experiencing an event may be rare (winning money on a lottery ticket, for example) if that event is 'risked' on a regular basis (like the way that millions of people buy lottery tickets every day) then that rare event will happen to some people. Â (If the chance of winning any money is only one in ten thousand, but ten million people play, we can expect a thousand of those people to win.)
Under those circumstances, talking about a necessary cause of the event (every single person who won the lottery had a ticket; every single person who contracted measles was exposed to the measles virus) is completely reasonable. Â Talking about causes that are not necessary, unless they are truly significantly contributory and verified to be so, is irresponsible. Â This is why the news media reports "Two hundred people drowned today because a tsunami flooded the coastal region" and not "Two hundred people drowned today because they weren't good enough swimmers."
Yes, for obvious reasons. Â It's a necessary cause. Â You simply can't have an infection with no infectious agent.
If we look at any single case, we will probably see multiple 'causes' and even, probably, what we might call "anti-causes" (things that should have made it unlikely for the event to occur, even though we know it did occur.) In examination of a single case, we could say things like "This individual contracted measles because he was exposed to measles virus; he had never been immunized against measles; and he had been eating and sleeping poorly, which impaired his immune system." Â But in discussion of the larger phenomenon, whether in news reports or scientific literature, it is irresponsible to point to causes that are not truly significantly contributory across the board. Â "Twenty people contract measles because 100% of them were exposed to a carrier and only 95% had been vaccinated" is reasonable. Â "Twenty people contracted measles and it's probably because they weren't eating and sleeping right" is irresponsible.
By which I believe you mean to imply "those conditions are in our hands," which is simply not true across the board. Â There are some diseases, like the common cold, where we can take precautions that will increase our chances of fighting off the disease without significant suffering. Â There are other diseases, like smallpox, where your only protection is not being exposed to the virus or being immunized against it beforehand and nothing else is going to stop you from getting it besides luck. Â There are even diseases, such as some strains of the flu, where the same precautions that might protect you against other diseases actually increase your danger, because the real damage of the disease is done by the body's own immune system. Â To minimize the role of the infectious agent in infection and overemphasize supposed precautions that can actually eclipse a necessary cause as a causal factor is really not consistent with the evidence (to put it mildly.)
If you truly believe so, you're invited to explain where you think the relevant point(s) of disanalogy are.
A word of advice:  Making the point you want in clear, plain language is much more effective than saying "Oh, if you understood $famous_philosopher then you'd realize that I am right."  That  gambit makes it look like you can't actually back up your own argument, and are relying on someone else's impressive reputation to overawe others out of expecting you to do so.
Likewise.
Antaeus:
Isn't that true more generally? Not that you can make things worse, but that in most infectious diseases, it's your immune system that kills you? Isn't that why AIDS was so puzzling at first, because disease organisms were being allowed to multiply until they actually caused problems directly? Since for a while before that people hadn't been coming down right and left with diphtheria or tetanus (where an actual toxin from the organism causes harm), "death by immune system" is what doctors were used to seeing?
I don't know whether it's a general rule, but in general it's a better idea to have a strong and healthy immune system; there's just that small minority of diseases (out of those caused by external pathogens) where having a strong immune system backfires.
Maybe I'm just prejudiced by having a ridiculously over-reactive immune system. But seriously, anybody like Behe who thinks the immune system is "Intelligently Designed" has to be out of their mind. How many problems could be avoided if you could just grab your immune system around the neck and yell: "Get a freakin' grip!"?
I don't think you could classify any human infectious diseases as being more virulent because you have a very active intact immune system. While it is true that immune suppressive treatments are given specifically to depress the body's immune system response to a transplanted organ, it is a controlled treatment to decrease organ rejection. Immune suppression occurs during certain aggressive cancer treatments, they are treatment related...and can seriously impair the body's response to an infectious agent/pathogen.
There are theories about auto-immune diseases...not infectious diseases...such as M.S., Type I Diabetes, Sjogren's Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Hashimoto and Graves Thyroiditis and Lupus (short list of auto-immune diseases) and studies that strongly implicate auto-immune reactions prior to the onset of these diseases (or disorder). But, they are not infectious diseases caused by pathogens.
A case in point would be the reporting of certain rare cancers such as Kaposi's Sarcoma and rarely reported pneumonias such PCP (pneumocystitis carinii pneumonia) from San Francisco in 1981...in young otherwise "healthy" male homosexuals. Other rare overwhelming opportunistic diseases which tended to be quite aggressive and deadly in this population (protozoan, fungal, herpes strains, c viral and bacterial, were reported as well.
Unique to these men were the alarming decreases in the T-lymphocyte (CD-4 and CD-8) counts. It was years later until the actual infectious agent HIV was discovered and many years later until effective anti-viral agents were developed and licensed to effectively treat...not cure...those infected with the HIV virus.
The virus has a unique ability to attach itself to the CD-4 molecule and replicating, thus devastating the bodies natural T-Cell lymphocytic immunity, against opportunistic infections.
Monitoring of the CD-4 count as well as monitoring of the viral load of HIV infection serves to monitor the effectiveness of HIV anti-viral treatment. It isn't the HIV infection itself that kills you, you die of an opportunistic overwhelming infection.
CD-4 count monitoring is also used to monitor the effectiveness of immuno-suppressive therapy following organ transplant...with one notable exception...the goal is to keep the CD-4 count somewhat suppressed...to decrease the risk of organ rejection.
Rev,
Well, the difference is that I don't play Russian Roulette nor I advised anyone to engage in such lethal game you're actively promoting.
Smart people opt out. Hence, 0 risk 0 complication 0 death. Do you have any problem with that? How are you going to kill the naive and the uninfected now?
No you don't need Math. You need a plan. So how are you going to kill yourself in a car accident? You tell me.
Vaccinia virus is NOT a variola virus.
Wishful thinking.
That's exactly how a vaccine should be made even today.
It wasn't arithmetic. It was a plan to get the disease early.
I have met people who have never had measles. So what is your point? Do you always thrive on fear?
The ability to read a vaccine labeled "LIVE MEASLES VIRUS" is easier than spotting an asymptomatic case. Unfortunately, you lack that capacity. How many naive children get infected intentionally by the vaccine everyday in a doctor's clinic compared to natural infection? Do you report vaccine-induced measles infection as primary infection? No, they don't make the count, they are excluded and it's intentional. Otherwise, measles cases will equate the number of vaccine doses given.
You're a religious man, remember? Your belief is faith-based, a non-thinking process. I advise you to go get a simple blood draw by a phlebotomist and tell me where he/she puts Your Precious Bodily Fluids.
Krebiozen - Apologies. Do you agree that one must know what polio viruses are before they can FIRST be "isolated, photographed, even created in the laboratory, and that make animals sick when they are injected into them"?
Philosophy will cut it my friend at least in part. You say we are talking about 'real' viruses that have been isolated'. When we speak of 'real' objects like viruses we are talking philosophy whether you admit it or not it comes under epistemology and ontology to be precise. Epistemology posits both a distinction and a correspondence between 2 realms a distinction between 'knowledge' and the 'real', 'theory and fact', etc. which also come into the picture do they not? The correspondence comes about when the scientist âtestsâ the theory against the âfactsâ, or compares a theoretical model with a ârealâ object such as a virus or bacterium. Methodology, by the way is a branch of philosophy which lays down procedural rules or protocols for obtaining âvalidâ knowledge.
O.K, in order to identify a polio virus one must already have constructed a concept (or a theoretical model) of the virus (our object) to be identified otherwise we would not know what to identify and what we might be looking at through our microscope would we? We construct our microscope on the basis of our knowledge of how to build one and how to use it do we not?
We must also have a concept of the methodological means of isolation and our biochemical characterization techniques but the electron microscope alone is not sufficient to do the trick is it? The concepts that we construct and utilize always exist within a particular form of theoretical discourse that we can call âscientificâ as compared with empiricism for example, which claims to 'test' theories against the alleged âfactsâ or objects in the 'real' that are some how thought to be external to and independent of the realm of knowledge/theory and yet also capable of being somehow represented/expressed in the latter. It then makes generalizations about observed external connections between objects that are thought to occur as regularities e.g. Virus A is observed in all smallpox B cases; ergo Virus A is the cause smallpox B. No amount of particular observations can warrant such a conclusion. Iâll deal with the causality problem in due course in another post, most should be able to see it straight away - but for the present letâs return to the other problem.
In arguing about âreal virusesâ as if they are independent of discourse and can vouchsafe our âknowledgeâ of them we end up with both a distinction and a correlation or correspondence between the two realms mentioned above and we also end up with a contradictory form of 'knowledgeâ and a circular argument. You canât step outside of your knowledgeâ of a theoretically constructed virus to see if itâs really there in the ârealâ outside of the theory can you? It would take too long to go into all this in depth but there is a problem here concerning the way in which virology for example conceives its objects (viruses) and how those objects are connected with other objects in the body i.e. via the causal connection.
You also state that:
One example is Janet Parker who was (hopefully) the last person to die of smallpox. The virus was identified using electron microscopy in fluid from her rash, though I don't know the name of the scientists who did this. She died of smallpox and worked in an office above a laboratory where smallpox was being studied. Since smallpox had been eradicated in the wild, certainly in England by 1978, it seems reasonable to assume she had caught the disease from the lab downstairs.
The problem here is that we need to track down the primary reference source to determine whether or not the whole virus (and not bits and pieces of genetic substance) was isolated by a direct scientific method free from any contaminants, electron microscopy is not sufficient, we also need to know how the virus was biochemically characterized and who did the work. We need to know who the scientist was who first constructed the concept of a smallpox virus and used the concept to specify the virus on a theoretical basis as a means of identifying the virus in a tissue sample? We need to know how the smallpox virus was identified for the first time from the sample taken i.e. how did the scientist that you donât know the name of actually âknowâ that it was a smallpox virus and not something else if there was no original isolated whole virus as a standard of comparison and possibly no concept that had been theoretically constructed?
Once isolated we also need to determine if the same virus âcausedâ the same disease in another human being, and also who did the work, where, and when. Hope you see at least one problem here? A theoretical discourse canât be refuted by appeals to the ârealâ for some of the reasons mentioned above, there is no 'real' or 'reality' that has not been constructed in discourse/language â there is no pre-discursive reality to appeal to. No doubt what I have said so far will be grossly misunderstood and the flack will fly if the mind still remains fixated on a flawed theory like GT. However,if I can get people to think a little more outside the existing frame whether I'm right or wrong I've done my bit.
Best regards.
Krebiozen,
Regardless. These precious bodily fluids are sterile because they are normally and physiologically free of microorganisms not to mention pathogens. Hence, you do a culture, to rule out any bacterial growth.
So what if the culture comes back negative? Where is the pathogen now? The test would also show inadvertent contamination and can be easily recognized. And besides not ALL specimen are cultured yet they they remain sterile such is an epidural blood patch.
You're talking about the part of the body that is in constant contact with the external environment and is protected by the skin and epithelial mucosa to maintain the sterility of your Precious Body Fluids. You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid.
Thingy, you're absolutely demented. I'm through with your nonsense, except for this:
No, you've got me confused with little augie, who started his tedious feces-flinging on this forum by screeching about how we were all atheists. I am, in fact, a devout proselytizing atheist, but not everyone on this board is. Also, I get itâyou haven't seen Dr. Strangelove. I'm just glad you don't command a bomber wing.
Tony, take your Foucaultian crapola and shove it where he would have wanted you to.
We need to know who the scientist was who first constructed the concept of a smallpox virus and used the concept to specify the virus on a theoretical basis as a means of identifying the virus in a tissue sample?
I'm forever disappointed that such arguments never seem to get extended to, say, the flush toilet.
@Th1Th2
I refuse to play any more of your lunatic games. Unless you can explain how your "due diligence" actually works, and how we can eliminate measles infection without vaccines, I'm not interested.
@Tony
I trained, qualified and worked for 7 years as a biomedical scientist and, fancying a change, I did a degree in social anthropology (I think Americans call it 'cultural anthropology'). Most of that course was philosophy of one sort or another, and as a natural scientist by training and experience you may imagine I spent quite a bit of time arguing with social scientists who came up with the same sort of arguments you do.
They argued that science is just another story we tell about the world, and has no greater epistemological validity than the explanations of an East African tribe, or any other cultural group. I would usually ask them how the East African tribe would go about building a jet airplane or an electron microscope, and they would accuse me of ethnocentrism, and so it would go on. I only mention this so you understand I am very familiar with your philosophical stance and the notions (a favorite social scientist word) you are describing.
In my opinion arguments about the nature of reality are not appropriate tools to deal with practical matters such as virology. If you want to talk about "electrons, energy, contract, happiness, space, time, truth, causality, and God" as Wikipedia aptly puts it, then philosophy is perhaps useful, but not solid objects like viruses that cause real diseases like smallpox.
In my opinion much of philosophy is just word play and posturing, and has little or no relevance to real life at all. You could say I'm an empiricist, and I think much of philosophy is bollocks, as we say in the UK.
What about when the genome (that's the sequence of nucleic acids making up the RNA or DNA of an organism in case you didn't know) of the polio virus is downloaded from the internet and used to painstakingly construct polio virus DNA nucleic acid by nucleic acid, until the whole thing is complete. It is then converted to RNA using reverse transcriptase and injected into mice, which get the symptoms of polio. What does your logic and philosophy say about that scenario?
Please take a look at the webpage about smallpox I linked to: http://ci.vbi.vt.edu/pathinfo/pathogens/Variola_Info.shtml If you still insist that smallpox virus is some sort of intellectual construct that does not exist in ontological reality, then I give up.
I understand what you are arguing Tony, I really do, much of it is familiar to me from the claims of HIV/AIDS denialists which interested me for a while. In fact I wonder if what you are arguing is an offshoot of that movement, as when virologists were asked to produce impossible standards of evidence for HIV and its effects, they pointed out that this was impossible for most viruses that cause contagious diseases. This had the effect on some people of challenging conventional understanding of how we know that any viruses produce infections. The names Janine Roberts and Steven Lanka spring to mind.
However I disagree with you completely. The facts overwhelmingly support conventional ideas about viruses. In my opinion claiming that smallpox virus is somehow not real or does not cause smallpox because of some philosophical sophistry is just nonsense.
Tony:
You appear to be knowledgeable about Philosophy. Emphasis on the "appear", I don't know enough to tell for sure, and I certainly don't have the interest to slog through it. I would never presume to argue philosophy with an "expert". I know my limitations. Perhaps someone who knows this field can tell me if it's bullshit or not.
So why do you presume to argue microbiology with those of us who know something about the subject? Frankly, your arguments are very similar to those of Creationists.
Perhaps someone who knows this field can tell me if it's bullshit or not.
The technical term is "horseshit." Ontology, for example, is completely unnecessary for empiricism. The epistemological argument, such as it is, thus collapses.
@Tony:
Several comments on your paragraphs about philosophy:
1) For the sake of the argument, grant that viruses as described by virologists do exist. How, then, should one go about proving that they exist?
1b) From your argument, I take it that if viruses exist it's impossible to prove that they exist. Or, to put it another, your argument seems to say that it's impossible to tell the difference between actually proving that viruses exist versus merely fooling yourself into thinking viruses exist. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
2) As far as I can tell, your argument could be used to cast doubt on the statement "if you're exposed to too much cyanide, you'll die". Or "if you're deprived of oxygen for too long, you'll die". If all medical any biological claims are in doubt, well, I don't understand why you're concentrating on the germ theory and viruses. Further, as far as I can tell, your philosophical argument applies just as much to your medical/biological claims as ours, in which case this discussion (or any discussion) is futile.
On the other hand, if medical/biological claims about cyanide/oxygen/etc aren't cast into doubt by your philosophical argument, then what's different about viruses that they are cast into doubt?
3)
I'm not quite following you. Are you saying that because the electron microscope was developed in order to look at viruses (assuming that that is the reason for their development), that means that pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes are suspect, in something vaguely analogous to a conflict of interest? But because optical microscopes weren't developed with the intent of looking at bacteria, optical pictures of bacteria aren't suspect?
4) I can't remember the exact details of the history of virology, but the outline go something like this: people found diseases which satisfied Koch's postulates, but which couldn't be isolated. They developed a technique that could filter out anything big enough to be seen by an optical microscope, used it on an an extract from a diseased organism, and found that the filtrate could still fulfill the postulates. Thus they concluded that there was something in there which could replicate by a bacteria, but was too small to be seen by an optical microscope. When the electron microscope was developed they looked at the filtrate and saw little blobs. They filtered extract from non-diseased organisms, put it under the electron microscope, and didn't see little blobs, so they concluded that the little blobs were a replicating causal agent of the disease in question.
Now, that brings us back around to your claim that scientists saw exosomes and thought they were viruses, but "they mistook exosomes for viruses" isn't (as far as I can tell) the argument you detailed in your previous comment.
I have since realized that the last line of my last post could be construed as homophobic. If anybody took it that way, I apologize.
I do think some bastard who deliberately infected other people with HIV and built up such a cult around himself that there were people dying of AIDS and proud of having been infected by the "Great" Michel Foucault, doesn't really deserve the circumspection we would ordinarily accord our...uh...differently oriented friends.
And also, tooâthis kind of Foucaultian horseshit:
is horseshit, from top to bottom.
@ Narad: As I recall it was you or another clever poster here who educated me on the finer points/differences between bullshit and horseshit a/k/a verbal coprology.
@ The Very Rev: Yes we all hit our limit with the trolls and we really have to stop engaging them...maybe they will just go away (wishful thinking).
Note to self: Representing Electrons was in the bag destined for the bookstore free box for a reason.
Tony,
if you really need to know all of those things, please go take some courses in biology. You'll probably need to take more than one - an introductory one before microbiology. And physics might help you out with the electron microscope.
Tony:
Except you have to understand them first, which you clearly do not. You should start by taking some introductory science classes as Chemmomo as suggested.
An introductory course in biology, chemistry or physics course at your local community college will teach you the basics of the procedural rules and protocols. Then through actual lab experience you will see how they work in practice.
I would caution that you approach those classes with an open mind. Your philosophical fantasies will not do you any favors in the realm of reality.
If you said that to a Zen master, they would bite you on the bottom and ask, "What hurts?" and, "What kind of discourse/language is 'Aaaarrrgghhh!!!' that constructed the pain in your ass?"
T Bruce et al -considering that most people on the blog know so much about microbiology and virology I'm getting some very evasive and strange responses to specific questions that I have asked and comments Iâve made regarding the primary evidence and reference sources which should be abundant if the case for GT is a fait accompli?
Chemmomo suggests I need introductory courses in biology but doesn't understand my argument - so where does that leave us?
Chris says I don't understand philosophy from which methodology in general is derived and then appeals to 'lab experience' after what I have said about empiricism and the 'knowledge' claimed to be derived by it? Let us expand a bit further. Methodology lays down procedural rules or protocols for scientific practice to be used either for the generation or testing of propositions by those who wish to obtain valid knowledge. Methodological prescriptions may be derived from epistemology, a conception of the forms of knowledge that are possible and of the conditions in which valid knowledge may be achieved, or from ontology, a conception of what exists. Methodological doctrines are therefore a product of metaphysics i.e. the theoretical philosophy of being and knowing. Read that again Chris and look up metaphysics.
He then completely ignores what I've said about 'reality' and then directly appeals to it in a bid to dismiss what I've said as âphilosophical fantasyâ- weird!
The Rev has no clue whatsoever about Foucault or what Foucault demonstrated concerning certain forms of theoretical discourse and discursive practices in which objects are constructed and deployed yet he dismisses the stuff tout court.
Matt Cline clearly misunderstands my argument concerning epistemology and ontology - he does not understand what I have said about microscopes and I get the feeling (perhaps Iâm deluded) that some of his questions are aimed merely at an attempt to take the piss â pardon the language.
Krebiozen â You state that : In my opinion arguments about the nature of reality are not appropriate tools to deal with practical matters such as virology. Good point but I canât help wondering why microbiologists/virologists on the blog like yourself are still arguing about the nature of that ârealityâ which includes âreal diseases like smallpoxâ as you put it caused by âsolid objects like virusesâ. Read what Iâve said again about epistemology and ontology better still, Iâll explain the argument further to you:
Epistemology conceives the relation between discourse (whether theoretical, scientific, or otherwise) and its objects in terms of both a distinction and a correspondence between a realm of discourse on the one hand and a realm of actual or potential objects on the other. These realms are distinct in that the existence of the realm of objects is thought to be independent of the existence of discourse, and they are correlated in that certain elements or forms of discourse are thought, at least in principle, to correspond to, or designate, members of the realm of objects and their properties. The precise character of the postulated bridging correspondence may vary considerably from one epistemology to another.
An epistemology is also a form of dogmatism in the sense that it posits a certain level or form of discourse as being epistemologically privileged and ultimately immune to further evaluation. To reject epistemology is to destroy the foundations of that dogmatism. This also implies that there can be no question of conceiving âscientific knowledgeâ in terms of both a distinction and a correlation or correspondence between two realms i.e. as a realm of knowledge on the one hand, (concepts, propositions, models, hypotheses, theoretical systems, etc.), and an independently existing realm of objects on the other, (âreal objectsâ, âphenomenaâ, âexperienceâ, âthe givenâ, âthe factsâ, 'real systems', or whatever). The circularity of epistemology is evident for, however it may conceive the distinction between knowledge and the world, its theory of knowledge logically presupposes prior knowledge of the conditions in which the knowledge process takes place. Thus the epistemological specification of the criteria of the validity of all knowledge must presuppose the validity of the prior âknowledgeâ from which that specification is derived. Such problems are usually ignored by most scientists today, but they do not go away as is clearly the case here.
It should now be clear that in the absence of epistemological conceptions of the relation between discourse and its objects, what is specified in a scientific discourse can only be conceived through that form of discourse, or another critical or complementary discourse; it cannot be specified independently of discourse in the ârealâ or exist in a form appropriate to, or representable in discourse e.g. by reference to external âfactsâ or âsolid objectsâ such as viruses as you put it outside the particular discourse in question. The same applies to other âobjectsâ of microbiology or virology. If you canât see the problem now then thereâs not much hope fro any of us.
Narad along with the Reverend has completely lost the plot and does not have a clue about what he is talking about, and another bright spark says stop âengaging the trollsâ - so anybody who disagrees with GT is a âtrollâ eh, and needs to take courses in biology and physics?
Rev is also very evasive and is never forthcoming on his scientific proof for the whole smallpox virus isolation business. If all you guys are all so adept and cock sure of your subject that GT delivers the goods Iâm still awaiting the scientific proof not empirical generalizations and regularities that are supposed to explain everything. I take it that the standard 'Wiki" definition will suffice to help in this situation:
The germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. Although highly controversial when first proposed, germ theory was validated in the late 19th century and is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices.
Notice that it does say a 'theory' that 'proposes' that microorganisms are THE CAUSE of many diseases (my caps emphasis). But guys â to say that microorganisms are the single cause of many diseases rules out the specific set of conditions that prevail in the body in which those germs have to operate as âcauseâ and implies a general monocausal doctrine. What is it that determines that that germs alone can act to secure the conditions of the many diseases in the bodies in question? Whatever effect germs may produce in the body will always depend on the specific prevailing conditions surely? Germs do not act and cannot act unconditionally they must either possess or be able to secure their means of âactionâ â not to mention their conditions of existence must they not? To secure their means of action is no easy task is it? If they cannot secure those means or do not in some way possess them they cannot cause squat unless something else is involved in the process can they? But the general monocausal doctrine of GT goes further it purports to establish the forms of connection that are, (or are not) possible, between the entities and phenomena (the germs and the diseases) concerned within a domain in general, and is not a determinate analysis of any definite connection is it?
To pretend otherwise without specifying the determinate conditions is to assign a form of autoeffectivity to the microorganisms, meaning they can work all by themselves to produce disease. That presupposes that they are somehow inherently endowed with all the necessary means to act independently of the environmental conditions within the host body which is absurd is it not? A variety of deleterious endogenous and exogenous environmental conditions may also be acting within and upon the organism to produce the particular disease in question and not solely the particular alleged âpathogenâ being blamed? How can you rule such conditions out? Or does the germ still work all by itself to do the trick without the means of doing so and independently of any determinate conditions within the body which is not only a theoretical and practical impossibility it is also inexplicable as to how. Unless of course you ignore or simply exclude those conditions which I have said all along. The theoretical generalization along with the monocausal doctrine that microorganisms are THE CAUSE of many diseases is therefore untenable in its present form. Or is there another form of the theory I donât know about which proves things otherwise?
All your lab experiments have their basis in a form of theoretical discourse, all your scientific equipment, all the concepts and models that you deploy in a bid to prove whatever. The objects like viruses and bacteria also have a theoretical basis and are theoretically constructed objects without the concepts that specify them thereâs no microbiology or virology is there?.
GT has now become such a privileged theory in microbiology that it has become ultimately immune to further evaluation thanks to the philosophically minded who believe they are not.
Krebiozen - nice one. Lacan says basically the same thing. 'The drives give you a kick in the arse my friend' and although the 'Real' is unknowable because it escapes the symbolic order of discourse/language' if I remember that quote correctly. The order or 'register'of the 'Real' in Lacanian discourse is not the same as the scientific 'real' which is a discursively constructed reality by the way. The 'Real' can however make its preent felt as when you put your hand in the fire or walk into a brick wall by accident - Master Kreb! Have you been reading Alan Watts laltely - he talks about double binds not unlike what I'm trying to get across via the epistemology cul-de-sac!
That presupposes that they are somehow inherently endowed with all the necessary means to act independently of the environmental conditions within the host body which is absurd is it not?
It is not. Poof! Now, perhaps you could provide a proof of the existence of plural minds, which the "epistemology cul-de-sac" requires in order to be a problem in the first place.
Tony, if you were the hotshot philosophy whiz you are pretending to be, you would understand some elementary aspects of philosophy and logic which you clearly do not.
You would not, for example, have claimed that when you are proposing that a scientific theory which has been one of the major underpinning of modern medicine for over a century, a century in which medicine has in fact made its biggest strides in the whole of recorded human history, not least in precisely the area where the scientific theory makes its explanations and predictions, is an illusion from top to bottom - deep breath - that it is someone else's responsibility to provide extraordinary proof for the incumbent theory which has earned its place, and not yours to provide extraordinary proof for your competing hypothesis, which so far has not even generated any testable predictions.
And it goes without saying that you would not, if you knew what you were talking about, draw attention to germ theory being called a 'theory' as if the scientific meaning of 'theory' was the same as the vernacular meaning.
In short, Tony, cut the shit. Tossing around Lacan's name is not going to do you any good when you show ignorance of things an undergrad with a single semester of Elementary Logic under his belt would know.
@Tony
I suppose in some sense what you say is true, but so what? We can never know reality directly. Our brains make a representation of reality from the input of our senses, our previous experience, our beliefs etc, and we project it "out there" and behave as if this is reality. I think a lot of philosophical confusion comes from conflating the model of the world we create in our brains, and the world "out there". That's like trying to eat the menu instead of the meal, confusing the map with the territory. Korzybski and Bateson are my favourite philosophers, as you might gather.
I also think that philosophical debate about whether there really is a reality "out there" is ultimately pointless. In everyday life it is sensible to behave as if reality exists, and leave philosophical debates about it to stoned social science undergraduates. Especially if you work in health care, where dithering about pondering deep philosophical questions could easily result in the death of a patient.
Pragmatically speaking, what use is your questioning of germ theory? Does it allow us to prevent or treat diseases more effectively? Does it throw any new light on how diseases spread? You make much of the conditions in the body that are necessary for infection to occur, but there is already a whole branch of medical science devoted to studying this - immunology.
We have constructed a scientific model of disease that has allowed us to eliminate smallpox. Science is about making models, and testing them by experiment. New information may lead us to abandon one model and construct another. That's how science is supposed to work. At present, germ theory seems to work very well as a model. What you seem to be suggesting, though in considerably more words, is that the current model is wrong. However, you don't seem to have a better one, and you don't seem to have any new information that is inconsistent with the current model.
Looking at 'germ theory' is perhaps misleading, and it is more constructive to look at a single example, like the polio virus, as I mentioned earlier. We know a lot about the polio virus. We know its structure, its genome, we know the receptors on the cell it attaches to and how it infects a cell. We know the mechanism by which it causes disease, and how it spreads from one person to another. We can even, as I have written before, construct a polio virus from scratch, and infect mice with it (I'm sure we could also infect humans, but that would be unethical). We can also use isolated, weakened or killed polio viruses to create a polio vaccine that is very effective at preventing people from being made ill by the virus. That's empiricism, and I don't see what you have to offer to improve the way we deal with viral illnesses.
If we know what something looks like, understand its structure, how it functions, and make a copy of it from scratch and demonstrate that this copy does what our model predicts it will do, then I think we are on pretty solid ground assuming it is real in some sense.
If something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I tend to assume it's a duck, not an intellectual construct created by discourse about feathered waddling entities.
Or if you are exposed to smallpox virus or HIV in a laboratory accident.
Tony:
Sorry, I don't live in a pretend world. I suggest you actually take a beginning biology class where you get to use real microscopes.
I just finished reading Nonsense on Stilts, which adequately describes the philosophy you are using as, well, nonsense. If you think that you can understand the world through naval gazing, then get off that computer and stop using any and all technology that required real science.
Krebiozen - I agree with much of what you say â I really do. I am pleased that at least somebody has some grasp as to what I'm trying to get at. However, the problem remains that I cannot obtain any primary reference sources for example, that conclusively prove that a whole isolated polio virus exists let alone causes anything, same with HIV, same with smallpox, and influenza to name but a few. Nobody in authority can or will provide such evidence. Why is that so, as it is a reasonable request is it not? If such whole viruses have been isolated and their genomes determined where is that primary source evidence, and why do you think nobody will provide it? If the authorities will or cannot provide it can you, so we can put an end to this issue? Or is that a stupid question because of influence of the powers that be concerning the virus evidence issue?
Chris - you are at it again, so you really do understand the world do you? Wow! I wish I did I've been at it longer than you and I still don't understand this place or some of the people in it!
Straw man argument, Tony, since Chris didn't claim that she understood the world, only that your navel-gazing approach wasn't much good for attaining any real understanding of it.
I reckon you might call that an "internal critique"; I seemed to remember someone around here was fond of those...
Tony, to quote this video, if we understood the world and knew everything then science would stop!
Really, Tony, you should stop the naval gazing and actually become familiar with the basics of reality.
Dear fellow and sister sceptics :
I have observed many valiant efforts recently @ RI to present reason and evidence to the "opposition", which I applaude- *however* we must remember that if a person is SMI, or even relatively normal but in the throes of an emotional upheaval, our heroic efforts may be futile.
Let me present a real life illustration (which parallels pseudo-scientific beliefs in otherwise normal people): my brilliant cousin in early March 2009 ( when the DJIA was at its recessionary low) decided to sell her investments in a mutual that echoes the Dow (via a retirement plan). "Don't sell", I say, "It'll come back. I won't sell mine. Hang on". She is adamant, believing the poppycock she had heard on the radio & TV that the Dow will drop *even* more ( BTW, charlatans- both financial and health- spread this nonsense far and wide: it continues today in other fear-mongering guises**). I begged and pleaded, attempting to reason with her, reminding her of past fiasci ('80's, '90's, early 2000's) and recoveries: reason didn't work. She sells ( losing 65%) and puts the money in a money market fund @ low rates. I didn't sell; it recovered. Today, she realises that she has since lost the equivalent of a year's salary because of her decision.
My cousin isn't stupid- she was terrified of *losing even more*. She is a lot like those who, frightened by a diagnosis and treatment plan that may inspire horror as well, run from the most rational course of action. Keeping to my own plan was not easy- but it worked. It involved *sang froid* and many sleepless nights. Life is hard.
My anecdote, and commenters' arguments with entranced believers, are purely cautionary tales to observers and fence-sitters.
** woo-meisters are branching out into financial advice. They feed upon fear and human weakness so this area is a match made in heaven for them.
@Tony:
Then why don't you correct my misunderstandings?
It would help if we could discuss your criticisms of the way that viruses are isolated and studied.
1) You've said that current way that viruses are isolated means that scientists might mistake exosomes for viruses. What about the isolation methods could cause this? If you answered this question in your comment #608, I completely fail to understand.
2) In #482 you say
And in #565
What, exactly, is wrong with using indirect methods? It's how scientists have observed electrons, protons and so on. There might be something wrong with the way that particular indirect methods are being used in virology, but them being indirect isn't in and of itself a reason to dismiss them.
3)
When you say this (just addressing the existence of viruses), do you mean:
1) The people who have claimed to have directly isolated a whole virus haven't published their results in a scientific paper, so you can't take a look at what they've claimed to have done.
2) You've asked people in authority for such scientific papers, but they either ignore you or shrug their shoulders.
3) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, the method used was actually indirect.
4) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, they did something directly, but it wasn't isolation.
5) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, what they claim was whole was actually just fragments.
6) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, #3, #4 and #5 don't apply, but none of the papers are conclusive.
7) There are papers that have conclusively demonstrated the direct isolation of a whole something, but there isn't enough evidence to determine if that something is a virus.
@Tony, quoting myself:
Oops, that might have been rude. Let me rephrase that as "Then please correct my misunderstandings".
@Tony
Here is some primary source evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of polio virus.
Studies on the Purification of Poliomyelitis virus 1942
http://is.gd/kw7ypD
Isolation of polio virus from the blood of human patient, identified by injection into rhesus monkey which subsequently developed polio 1945
http://is.gd/3IOLUY
Isolation of polio virus from stools of human patients 1945
http://is.gd/9UInhs
Crystallization of Purified MEF-1 poliomyelitis virus particles 1955
http://is.gd/v8GCBR
Primary source evidence for the determination of the polio virus genome?
From http://is.gd/QtWd6E
In 1981, two different research groups, Vincent Racaniello and David Baltimore at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Eckard Wimmerâs team at State University of New York, Stony Brook, published the poliovirus genome. They used an enzyme to switch the single strands of viral ribonucleic acidâRNAâto double strands of deoxyribonucleic acidâDNAâand then determined the sequence of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine encoding the five molecules that are the substance of the virusâs existence.
Here are the Racaniello papers:
Molecular cloning of poliovirus cDNA and determination of the complete nucleotide sequence of the viral genome 1981
http://is.gd/8sOMQb
Complete nucleotide sequence of the attenuated poliovirus Sabin 1 strain genome 1981
http://is.gd/VlcmA3
In vitro synthesis of infectious poliovirus RNA
http://is.gd/ueqOme
The Eckard Wimmer paper is here:
Nature, 1981. 291(5816): p. 547-53
http://is.gd/92EOQJ
This has taken me about an hour, on a rainy Sunday afternoon, using Google, PubMed and Wikipedia. Do I really need to repeat this for the other viruses you mention?
I have just posted a comment that gives several links to primary evidence for the isolation, purification, pathogenicity, genomic determination and genomic synthesis of the poliomyelitis virus. It is currently waiting for moderation. I wouldn't want anyone else to duplicate my search unnecessarily.
Matt-
When you say this (just addressing the existence of viruses), do you mean:
1) The people who have claimed to have directly isolated a whole virus haven't published their results in a scientific paper, so you can't take a look at what they've claimed to have done.
2) You've asked people in authority for such scientific papers, but they either ignore you or shrug their shoulders.
3) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, the method used was actually indirect.
4) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, they did something directly, but it wasn't isolation.
5) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, what they claim was whole was actually just fragments.
6) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, #3, #4 and #5 don't apply, but none of the papers are conclusive.
7) There are papers that have conclusively demonstrated the direct isolation of a whole something, but there isn't enough evidence to determine if that something is a virus.
All except 1)&6)so far.
Concerning epistemology and ontology read post 622 again if you have not already done so. You say:
What, exactly, is wrong with using indirect methods? It's how scientists have observed electrons, protons and so on. There might be something wrong with the way that particular indirect methods are being used in virology, but them being indirect isn't in and of itself a reason to dismiss them.
True but all observations are to a certain extent theoretical are they not? To âobserveâ an electron or a proton by an indirect method as you put it presupposes that you have already constructed a concept of an electron or a proton along with the indirect method you are intending to use otherwise you would not be able to distinguish an electron from a table would you? It does not take a philosophy whiz to figure that one out does it? It also depends on what precisely you are claiming can be identified/observed by that particular indirect method does it not? PCR for example, cannot identify a whole polio virus and it is also not an appropriate indirect method for observing one is it? How do you determine for example, that strands of gene substance actually derive from a whole polio virus and are not the gene substance of something else if you have never isolated a whole virus by direct method to biochemically characterize it and then use its genome and coat proteins as a standard? You obviously know that âantibody testsâ are non-specific anyway for virus if you are a microbiologist.
I get the impression that microbiologists and virologists are very wary of giving much away as far as primary reference sources are concerned (if there are any at all, and thatâs what Iâm really trying to determine) - itâs as if you come up against that brick wall I mentioned to Krebiozen. Microbiology also appears to be a hazardous profession for more reasons than meet the eye does it not? If there are âpathogenic virusesâ then they are more than natural bits of DNA or RNA wrapped in protein coats because they also have an internal electrodynamic structure (or biopotential) in addition to the ordinary charge structure since all chemistry at base involves electromagnetics does it not?
Krebiozen
I have just posted a comment that gives several links to primary evidence for the isolation, purification, pathogenicity, genomic determination and genomic synthesis of the poliomyelitis virus. It is currently waiting for moderation. I wouldn't want anyone else to duplicate my search unnecessarily.
When it comes up. Is the primary evidence easily accessible for scrutiny? Or does one have to go through the eye of a needle to obtain the papers for scrutiny?
Tony,
Hereâs another thought for you: if, as you complain, no one here understands your argument, maybe itâs not us. Maybe itâs the way youâre expressing your argument.
And just so you understand my argument clearly, I am suggesting that if you are interested in learning about science from primary sources, you go directly to the primary sources. And, based on the level of knowledge about science youâve demonstrated in these blog comments, youâll need to start at the beginning. Absolutely nothing youâve said so far suggests you have any understanding of scientific method.
And please understand one other thing: science is not philosophy. While strictly speaking, your comment that âAll your lab experiments have their basis in a form of theoretical discourse,â is true, at this point, we diverge. You may wish to stay in your world of discourse, but those of who are scientists do not. We learn from our experiments, and from other scientistâs experiments. Knowledge builds on knowledge. You have not convinced me that armchair philosophy brings anything to the table.
@Tony
I have linked to 8 papers, 7 of them are accessible full text, the 8th is behind a paywall with only the abstract accessible, but the other 7 should suffice to make the point.
Frankly, I think we need to stop humoring Tony's obsession with whether this virus or that virus has ever been fully isolated because it's feeding into his delusional all-or-nothing thinking. He thinks that if he can prove that there's one infectious agent that we don't know everything about, that will make plausible the proposition that there are no infectious agents. Which is utterly ridiculous, like claiming that if you don't know whether the long, straight, narrow wound in the victim's side was caused by a butcher knife or a meat cleaver, that means it could be the result of a poison.
He is the one who has brought forth the ridiculous proposition that "alleged" microorganisms are actually the result of the disease rather than being a cause. Let him defend that ludicrous idea if he chooses to try. But for him to be complaining that we do not have fulll knowledge of this infectious agent or that, while ignoring that there is no evidence for the risible theory that "dis-ease" somehow develops in patterns that exactly emulate transmission of an infectious agent but does so without any such agent, is malarkey from start to finish.
"scientist's" above should read "scientists' " (plural and possessive)
One more thing Tony: Please make sure you thank Krebiozen for doing your homework for you.
Chemmomo:
Especially since he is over a century behind on his science.
Indeed. When Ernst Mach died in 1910, still not really believing in atoms, it was kind of pathetic. True, nobody had ever seen an atomâalthough they had seen the scintillations caused by the decay of individual atomsâbut the model had answered so many questions and given so much new information that was subsequently confirmed, that not believing in atoms was just perverse.
Now, however, we have trapped individual atoms, even individual electrons, tickled them with lasers so they emit pulses too fast for the human eye to separate, so that we can see individual elementary particles with the naked eye. Calling the atomic theory a "discourse" like any other is not just perverse, but literally insane.
You might fall back on quarks, which are about where atoms were in 1910, and if our current theory is correct we will never, ever, see an isolated one. However, we can shoot electrons into protons and neutrons and observe them to scatter off of three smaller subunits. That and the fact that Quantum Chromodynamics has withstood every experimental test so far, makes the quark model at least as solid as the atomic model was in 1910.
Keeping a healthy skepticism about our scientific models is all well and good, but we are not suddenly going to discover that the earth is flat, that it's at the center of the universe, that matter is continuous, or that the germs that cause disease are in fact just byproducts of that dis-ease. We're just not. No postmodernist French pseudophilosophical horseshit is going to cast any of these things in doubt. all they're going to do is make you sound like a brainless peckerwood.
Bring on your Foucaultian "philosophy". "I refute it thus!" Remember we can see a LOT smaller rocks than we could in Johnson's time!
@Tony:
Okay, then:
1) What methods which virologists think are direct are actually indirect, and why?
2) What methods which virologists think are isolation aren't actually isolation, and why?
3) What methods which virologists think are giving them whole samples are actually giving them fragments, and what mistake(s) in methodology/thinking is causing them to mistake fragments for the whole?
4) When virologists actually directly isolate a whole sample, what steps are they failing to take which would distinguish viruses from non-viruses?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to implying something like: that electrons are indirectly observed, and are established by a theoretical framework, is fine because if electrons don't actually exist it doesn't have a lot of real-life impact. However, for things which impact on human health we should have much more concrete evidence.
For most viruses, that they exist in general isn't established by things like PCR and antibody tests. For most viruses, after establishing that they exist in general, PCR and antibody tests are then used to establish if they exist in a particular person, since using the same methods as to establish their general existence for individual people is would be too time consuming and expensive. Are you saying that indirect tests shouldn't be used when making a medical diagnosis? Or are you just talking about those viruses like HIV which use things like PCR to validate their existence? Or is your point something else?
1) I don't know what you mean by "internal electrodynamic structure (or biopotential)". Wikipedia says "In physiology, a signal or biopotential is an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength), caused by chemical reactions of charged ions", which doesn't seem to have anything to do with structures.
2) The electromagnetism involved in chemistry in general is no more dangerous than that you'd get from mixing ordinary vinegar with ordinary baking soda. Specific chemical reactions might be dangerous because of the heat they generate, the chemicals they produce, or the chemicals that go into the reaction.
3) I have no idea what danger an electrodynamic structure could pose, above and beyond being infected. I mean, if I were to take a flask containing a bacterial virus that doesn't target any of the bacteria normally found in/on my body, suspended in a fluid consisting of harmless chemicals, I'm pretty sure that I could smear it on my skin and/or ingest it without coming to any harm. If it would cause me harm, what harm, and by what mechanism(s)?
4) If this biopotential has some risk to it above and beyond getting infected, wouldn't the same risk come from handling anything living? If it has to be from something that's microscopic, what about people who make homemade bread with yeast? Wouldn't the biofields of the yeast have the same negative effects on these people as it would on microbiologists handling viruses?
5) Microbiologists generally take precautions to avoid being exposed to the things they're working with.
@Chemmommo
I'm happy to find the papers, if it helps convince one fence-sitting bystander that virology is really built on solid foundations. Not everyone knows where to look for primary research, or what search terms to use, and if you can't find what you are looking for it is quite reasonable to assume there is a massive conspiracy to hide its non-existence. I'm sure that Tony will accept germ theory entirely once he has seen the primary research about the polio virus.
We all know Tony's been done ages ago but I really love seeing vaccine apologists defend the germ theory. Tony had stopped learning. He simply failed to thrive and is impervious to facts. Despite the obvious, he still thinks that the use of deliberate ignorance is better than nothing.
"I get the impression that microbiologists and virologists are very wary of giving much away as far as primary reference sources are concerned (if there are any at all, and thatâs what Iâm really trying to determine"
What exactly do you consider "primary reference sources"? For example, I posted links to 5 papers all of which are primary sources describing original research. I mean, someone can't just mail you a dead mouse and be like "see, it really did die from bacteria x".
Unless a microbiologist is in private industry somewhere, a significant factor in his or her career advancement will involve publishing results, which is why the primary sources are so readily available. For example:
You can find pictures all over the place of bacteria and viral particles.
Pubmed, an NCBI resource, indexes peer reviewed scientific publications (and a couple that are not). Additionally the NCBI maintains a database of the actual PDFs and HTML versions of publicly funded research that's been published in pay-for-access journals.
The NCBI contains a repository of DNA sequences (the trace archives, which contain Sanger reads, and the sequence read archives which contain Illumina SOLiD and other next gen reads), although due to size constraints the SRA is no longer accepting new submissions.
NCBI's GEO and EBI's arrayexpress database contain raw data for gene expression studies.
The american type culture collection (there are a few others in other countries) has a strain repository for microorganisms.
Otherwise, I don't know what you want. I mean if you're in Charlottesville I could check with my employer and you could watch the next time mouse infections are done and keep an eye on them until they die or are sacrificed, and watch over the necropsy and resulting bacterial isolation. If you're not going to believe publications that is all that's left.
Julian Frost,
Demonstrable fact. You failed to recognize that my argument is the bolded part: protected you from a disease
Demonstrable fact. Vaccinia virus is NOT A variola virus. Hence, the vaccine did NOT protect you from smallpox. It is something else that did.
Demonstrable fact. Uncomplicated vaccinia virus infection from wild-type and vaccine is NOT a killer which is not surprising at all. But we do know smallpox vaccine is notorious for myriad of adverse events and complications let alone secondary infection, don't we?
Just to clarify the decidedly unclear discussion (from a certain party) about smallpox:
Actually, that should be "By definition" rather than "Demonstrable fact". Vaccinia and variola are two species of poxviruses in the genus Orthopoxvirus. The two are 97% identical at the nucleotide level.
I believe that the commenter might have been confused by the disease-based terminology "variola major" and "variola minor", which refer to different "strains" of variola, based on the severity of the illness they produced (not confirmed by genome sequencing, because the disease was eradicated - by vaccination - before sequencing was available).
The current reference sequence was obtained from a "variola major" isolate; there is - so far as I know - no sequence from a "variola minor" isolate to compare it with, so we can't know what (if any) differences there were between the two "strains". At any rate, both were considered to be the same species.
Of note, vaccinia was originally derived from "cowpox" (I put "cowpox" in inverted commas because the native hosts for the virus are rodents) but sequencing now shows that it is as different from current cowpox viruses as it is from variola.
Vaccinia may have originally been a different species from what we now call cowpox or the two may have "drifted apart" genetically during the long period of culture and transfer. At any rate, humans are not the "optimal" host for vaccinia, so the disease it produces in humans is much less severe.
What that "something else" might be is, apparently, left to our imaginations. Perhaps it was benevolent aliens (not the ones that kidnap people and probe their nether regions). However, there's a lot of research showing that infection with the vaccinia virus (and cowpox, for that matter) creates a cross-reacting immunity to variola (and other Orthopoxvirus species, apparently). Why some people have such a hard time grasping immune cross-reaction is baffling.
Again, this would be "By definition" rather than "Demonstrable fact". An uncomplicated infection with any virus - even Ebola - is, by definition not "a killer", since death is pretty much universally regarded as a "complication".
I have no idea what the commenter is driving at (he/she may not, either), but there were a lot of factual errors in their comment (nothing new for this person).
Prometheus
Th1Th2 seems to believe that if he views something as absurd, it must therefore be obviously false. Vaccinia and variola are different viruses, therefore one cannot provide immunity to the other, even if the evidence suggests otherwise, because for that to happen would be absurd. I'd make a crack about atheism, but this isn't the time or place.
Prometheus,
So what? The diseases they caused are NOT the same by a wide margin and are distinguishable from one another.
No, I'm not. That clearly is not my point but rather between vaccinia virus and variola virus.
Hence, it's called cross-infection and what Jenner's apologists did was disgustingly hideous.
What part of the word "uncomplicated", do you NOT understand? You might as well add vaccines on your list and put death on top of all complications. Practice what you preach otherwise, don't put the cart before the horse.
You mean a plethora of cross-infections caused by smallpox vaccination. You would never understand cross-protective immunity unless you have produced an actual variola vaccine and have inoculated the herd, which we all know didn't happen, or the person has experienced cross-infections, which of course was the ultimate goal of smallpox vaccination and it really was a good thing when they stopped vaccinating the people.
Gray,
It really is very absurd that a non-specific vaccine could have "eradicated" a totally different infectious disease. Do you know of any other vaccine in the current market that is based on this model? Like I said, it's a good thing they stopped smallpox vaccination. Smart move nonetheless.
Tell me, Th1Th2, are you omniscient? Please don't just dismiss the idea as absurd unless you can explain exactly what happened to an infectuous disease that killed a third of the people it infected. Why isn't it still around? Why not?
Th1Th2:
Take a look at a husky and a shih-tzu. Genetically, they're about 99% similar. Actually, there's another point to be made. Due to Th1Th2's pure black-and-white thought process, she concluded that "90% similar" means "totally different."
She also seems to have no concept of probability, as she fails to recognize something that kills 30% of the time is different from something that kills less than 1% of 1% of the time. There truly is no beginning to Th1Th2's talents.
This is why I find it rather really easy although amusing to debate with these so-called "scientific thinkers" with their infamous proclivity to flight of ideas AKA analogies. I have asked for vaccines and then they will give dogs in return. I just hope you no dogs were harmed.
Gray,
Great. Now can you give me the probability of death amongst the naive and uninfected for a disease they don't have? Don't give me cats this time please.
Okay, this is just dumb. Th1Th2 is trying to claim that the smallpox vaccine did nothing, despite the extinction of the disease in the wild. What next? Is she going to talk about how heavier-than-air flight is physically impossible?
Still doesn't understand how analogies work.
Still hasn't provided a way for people to remain uninfected. In terms of intelligence, Th1Th2 is an inanimate object.
Krebiozen - may thanks for the references, unfortunately my PC won't open some of them. I've tried to Google them - no luck. As a matter of interest about 3 months asked the following question:
Do you know of anyone who has successfully physically isolated a complete pthogenic virus free from contaminants using PCR and/or other indirect methods and proved conclusively that the virus in question is the sole cause of a specific disease in living human beings? If the answer is yes. Please give full details. If the answer is no please specify why not. This is not a joke. Some take it seriously.
Prof. Racaniello who is mentioned in some of the references you cite answered as follows:
Two isolations come to mind immediately. SARS coronavirus was initially identified by PCR in patients with SARS in 2003
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... The entire genome was
subsequently amplified and assembled to form an infectious DNA clone.
PCR was also used to identify West Nile virus as the agent of human
encephalitis when in first entered the US in 1999
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S014...
Unfortunately those papers were also inaccessible so I asked him again, and also asked another question- but no reply to date:
Thanks Professor, but neither of the references you provided can be found - perhaps you could post the details when you have the time. Meanwhile, I have a question. Why aren't direct methods used to isolate viruses which should be abundant if sampled at the appropriate time during infection if they are really present in certain diseases? Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it PCR is an indirect method that does not in fact 'isolate' anything and was never intended to do so, according to its inventor Dr K. Mullis. If you cannot isolate virus directly from all other contaminants to use as a standard first, how do you know that what is being assembled/ amplified from the fragments of genetic code is a even a clone of the alleged virus in question?
I can't answer that question - you probably can.
Best regards and thanks for what you did send. I'll get back to you on what I have been able to access in due course.
This is like saying (and yes, I know that it'll go over Thingy's head, being an analogy and all) "The seatbelt could not possibly have been what kept you from going through the windshield, because it's not a windshield."
@Tony
Your PC needs to be able to read PDFs for most of those papers. Most browsers come with a plug-in that allows this, but you may need to install Adobe Reader, or Foxit Reader - they are both free and easily found and installed and will allow your browser to read PDFs. I suggest you do this before going any further. Being unable to read the primary material we are discussing is a major handicap.
It was kind of Prof. Racaniello to respond to you. To be honest I'm surprised you got a reply. You asked the Professor:
There is some misunderstanding of what is meant by "isolate", which has a different meaning in virology. In virology a primary isolate is a sample taken from a person with the disease that contains the virus. It doesn't mean that there is nothing in the sample apart from the virus. Generally there is not enough virus in a sample taken from a living person to be able to be isolated in the sense you seem to mean. To find papers that describe isolation of a virus as you mean, you might try a search for viral purification. It has been done for polio as described in the 2nd paper I linked to, and for most other viruses, even HIV.
You can't isolate (in the way you mean it) a virus using PCR, that's not what it is designed for. PCR finds a specific sequence of nucleic acids and makes lots of copies of it which are then detectable by other methods. If you know a specific sequence of nucleic acids that is exclusively found in a virus you can use PCR to detect that sequence, and hence the virus.
PCR is also used to make lots of copies of a strand of DNA that can then be attached to other DNA strands to make an entire viral genome, as was done in the case of SARS mentioned by Prof. Racaniello. There are people who frequent this blog who use PCR on a regular basis and are far better qualified to explain this than I am.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by indirect methods. Virology is not my area of expertise, but as I understand it you can:
1. Take bodily fluids or tissues from a human or animal infected with the virus and use various methods to purify the virus. These methods include chemical extraction, filtration and ultracentrifugation. Once the virus is purified you can examine it with an electron microscope, or inject it into animals to see if they get the disease.
2. Inject an extract of bodily fluids and tissues, inject an extract into an animal and when it gets sick, use method 1. This is essentially using an animal to make more copies of the virus.
3. Infect a tissue culture with the extract, use that to produce lots of virus, and use the methods in 1 to purify it. This is often what is used to make vaccines. You may need to use chemicals to stimulate the cells in the culture to produce viruses.
The papers I linked to in #637 give details of how all these methods have been used to isolate polio virus. Please install a PDF reader on your PC and take a look at the papers I link to.
By the way, you can never prove that a virus is the "sole cause of a specific disease", except by examining every single case and finding the virus. There is always the chance that some other pathogen is causing similar symptoms in some cases. Variola minor and Bordetella parapertussis spring to mind. What you can prove is that the virus does cause the disease, which has been done many, many times.
JohnV - aplogies for not replying sooner. Haven't had the chance to look at the references yet but will get back to you in due course. As you can see I have had my hands full with other bloggers some of which still do not understand that a scientific theory is a specific form of discourse. What else can it be? How can you even discibe something or explain something without using some form of discourse?
@Tony
In case the shortened links were causing your problems, here are direct links. You could right-click on the first 7 and use "save as" to save them on your PC to read later using a PDF reader like Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader:
Studies on the Purification of Poliomyelitis virus 1942
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2135256/pdf/395.pdf
Isolation of polio virus from the blood of human patient, identified by injection into rhesus monkey which subsequently developed polio 1945:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC435564/pdf/jcinvest00597-01…
Isolation of polio virus from stools of human patients 1945:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC435563/pdf/jcinvest00597-01…
Crystallization of Purified MEF-1 poliomyelitis virus particles 1955
http://www.pnas.org/content/41/12/1020.full.pdf
Here are the Racaniello papers:
Molecular cloning of poliovirus cDNA and determination of the
complete nucleotide sequence of the viral genome 1981
http://www.pnas.org/content/78/8/4887.full.pdf
Complete nucleotide sequence of the attenuated poliovirus Sabin 1
strain genome
http://www.pnas.org/content/79/19/5793.full.pdf
In vitro synthesis of infectious poliovirus RNA
http://www.pnas.org/content/82/24/8424.full.pdf
The Eckard Wimmer paper is here (abstract only, full text behind paywall):
Nature, 1981. 291(5816): p. 547-53
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v291/n5816/abs/291547a0.html
Tony is playing a trick by demanding direct rather than indirect isolation of a virus. Every observation of any kind is indirect, including looking at a macroscopic object with your own eyes. Therefore, anything at all that you claim as "direct", he will identify as "indirect". You can't get anywhere with him.
Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world are very happy that smallpox was eradicated and polio is almost eradicated.
Yes.
pd = pi * pdi
where
pd is the odds of a currently uninfected person dying
pi is the odds of a person getting infected in the future
pdi is the odds of an infected person dying
"What you can prove is that the virus does can cause the disease, which has been done many, many times."
If you want to say "does" you would also have to prove that it "does" so every single time in every situation. It doesn't.
The host has to be susceptible and the conditions have to be favorable for infection.
Krebiozen:
I'm not surprised. Prof. Racaneillo has been trying to reach out to as many people as possible about microbiology. He may have answered because it was not about chronic fatigue syndrome and XMRV. If you haven't, you should check out his website, http://www.virology.ws/, which has links to virology lectures and all three of his podcasts. Even though some of the material on the virus, parasite and microbiology podcasts go over my head, they are entertaining and enlightening.
(Disclaimer: he has read two of my comments on his podcasts.)
Tony:
Actually, that is quite funny coming from someone whose science is a century behind, who cannot open a pdf file on his PC, and has absolutely no clue how science is done.
Do yourself a favor, open up Google on your browser. Then type in your city's name followed by the term "community college." There you will find good basic science and computer classes. You have quite a bit to catch up on.
It seems our trolls are borrowing each other's tricks. Now it's augie who thinks he can redefine words at will.
@augustine
Don't you even understand basic English? I wondered if it is a US/UK English thing, but I just checked with an American, and she doesn't understand "does" to mean always, every single time and in every situation either.
Actually, she asked my why I was wasting my time arguing with a nitpicking idiot. She has a good point.
Thanks Chris, that looks like an interesting site. I am continually amazed at how specialized scientists are these days. A couple of weeks ago I met a scientist who has spent 3 years working on nothing but HIV mutations and antiviral drug resistance. I can barely keep up with the basic stuff, and if I look at any specialized area it isn't long before I'm out of my depth.
I know enough to have an idea of just how much I don't know. There seem to be a lot of people who don't have the faintest idea of even that.
Krebiozen,
"The seatbelt could not possibly have been what kept you from going through the windshield, because it's not a windshield."
So you analogized vaccinia vaccine to be the seatbelt and the windshield as the smallpox. How come we still have windshield today? Should we also "eradicate" windshields? What's next? The seatbelt will protect you from getting soaked in the rain?
Why these pretenders could not even start off with a better analogy is just simply astonishing. Just imagine if they run out of analogies where do they turn next for help?
Kevin,
Was that supposed to be an analogy? I didn't see any numbers, all letters. Anyway, you forgot one thing: any number multiplied by zero equals zero.
Th1Th2, that was algebra, which you should have learned in junior high. Also, which of the numbers Kevin presented would be zero, and why? Be clear and honest.
@Th1Th2
Try directing your idiotic remarks to the right person.
Chris - grow up. My PC opened the first file but not some of the others that's the nature of computers. Some things you or I can understand some things we can't particularly if we don't even try - as I've said before much of what passes as 'science' where microbiology is concerned is 'empiricism'and derievs from philodsophy whether you like it or not. That can be a problem even for microbiologists who believe that they know it all but don't.
Tony, you still haven't answered the big question: If germ theory is nothing more than empiricism, why does it work?
My PC opened the first file but not some of the others that's the nature of computers.
How do you know this?
@Tony
You may not have noticed my post #665 where you can 'right-click' and save all but one paper as a PDF you can open with Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader.
Krebiozen, just for the entertainment and education on how parasites can have a bigger effect than some people give them credit for, download this episode: http://www.virology.ws/2011/02/09/twip-22-hookworm/
It is fascinating, and a good antidote to Tony's clueless naval gazing. Yes, I know it is long, but it made the winter task of pruning the grape vines go much faster.
Tony:
Prove it. Post the papers, writings and books that support your contention. Give us papers from qualified reviewers that contend that germs do not cause disease. Give us evidence, not your opinion. Something you have been asked to do multiple times.I have just checked each and everyone of your posts, and the closest you come to is "The first reference for C. perfringens causing gangrene is 1892 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital", which is over a century old and does not support your claim in any way.
Actually, if you had even take a beginner course in philosophy you would have learned how to create a coherent argument using documented observations, that you would reference. But you have not. All I can figure out is that you became confused when you learned that a couple of centuries ago people who did "science" were called natural philosophers.
Tony, go and read Nonsense on Stilts, and take a look at the blog and podcast of the author: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/
And then go and catch up on both your philosophical thought (which seems to be several centuries out of date, it took Galileo dropping balls off the Tower of Pisa to refute Arisotle's thought experiment), and science (which is over a century out of date). Open up your mind to new things and try to drag yourself into the 21st century.
Until Tony either produces some kind of real evidence, or pulls himself into the 21st century: I suggest he be ignored. Or mocked, depending on your mood.
LW - 666 Mark of the Beast - had to be some tricky remark!!
Tony is playing a trick by demanding direct rather than indirect isolation of a virus. Every observation of any kind is indirect, including looking at a macroscopic object with your own eyes. Therefore, anything at all that you claim as "direct", he will identify as "indirect". You can't get anywhere with him.
Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world are very happy that smallpox was eradicated and polio is almost
eradicated.
You are making the issue of looking down a microscope sound as bad as looking through Galileo's telescope at the inquisition. Is that what you thought I meant, that the issue was only about observations using electron microscopes?
You do indeed live in a 'real world' - a world with electon microscopes too, but you have only come to know that world through the orders of the imaginary, symbolic and the real. There's no science (whether it admits it or not) which does not articulate those three orders or 'registers' which are all interconnected. There's no direct access to the 'Real' if there was there would be no need for science. But we can still refer to and use the terms direct and indirect without the problem that you are suggesting. And we can all live happily or unhappily in that world together with our direct and indirect methods of virus isolation and eradication can we not?
Many microbiologists are convinced and will defend to the death that natural whole pathogenic viruses really do exist in the form of bits of nucleic acid with mostly protein coats, that have been isolated, and really do cause the diseases that they are alleged to cause with the body's help - I'm still skeptical but do not mind being convinced otherwise when I've seen all the scientifc evidence.
Best regards
augustine writes:
If you want to say "does" you would also have to prove that it "does" so every single time in every situation. It doesn't.
Concepts of causation once again prove to be too much for augustine, as in the past with probability, and even more elementary forms of math such as subtraction.
Not in general a good set of equipment for evaluating scientific or medical information.
Gray Falcon
Just because something "works" doesn't mean something is true.
Newton's laws work but that doesn't mean they are true.
Narad - I don't! It's just a figure of speech - go write a thesis on it.
Gray - I didn't say that GT is nothing more than empiricism I have said that it is based on a monocausal doctrine, and has it's basis in philosophy not science, and that it is incoherent see post 623 it will help. I do not deny that 'germs' have a role to play but that will always depend on the prevailing conditions.
Sir Jud
Sir Krebz
Oh, so you actually mean germs MOSTLY cause disease?
Miracle Max:
I didn't say that GT is nothing more than empiricism I have said that it is based on a monocausal doctrine, and has it's basis in philosophy not science, and that it is incoherent see post 623 it will help. I do not deny that 'germs' have a role to play but that will always depend on the prevailing conditions.
And what do the "prevailing conditions" have their "basis in"?
Within an inertial reference frame they are accurate within the limits of experimental error. Newton's laws and special relativity provide the same predictions within experimental error at velocities well above .99C. Newton's laws are a very good approximation of truth for a substantial range of sizes and speeds.
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven't provided.Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Approximation of truth? Does that mean MOSTLY true? Or All the way true?
Which one? The one where they directly transfused blood from an infected person or that homemade calf lymph potion?
Augustine:
True enough for engineering purposes. There are a remarkable number of jokes that involve a mathematician and an engineer.
Both of them.
Chris
You seem to be obsessed with demanding papers, books, writings from other people that you call 'evidence' as opposed to what you call my 'opinion'. You're into the 'not qualified to speak' business.
What it all boils down to is that you personally do not like what I'm arguing and wish to impose the usual methodological protocols on me that you have been conditioned to accept.
You say that my philosophical thought is out of date and ask me to prove what I am arguing or you will sentence me to be 'ignored' or 'mocked' unless I produce 'real evidence' what the hell is 'real evidence' and who decides whether it's real or not - You? Sounds like I'm being relegated to No6 in the opening of the famous TV series 'The Prisoner' starring Patrick McGoohan - 'We want information, information........The Village is everywhere and you're in it too Chris!!!!!!!
Interesting philosophy. How would it play out if you were kneecapped with a crowbar? Would it just be your opinion that your leg was broken? Could the crowbar just have been one of many causes? Perhaps your leg breaking was what caused someone to hit you in the first place?
Gray,
Kevin made that up. That equation is crap. It's true, any number multiplied by zero equals zero. Also, if
pd = pi * pdi
ergo
pi = pd / pdi
And that will cancel out death.
F grade for whatever crap that is.
Th1Th2: It's called algebra, and it's also basic probability theory. He didn't "make it up" any more than mathematics is "made up". And you still haven't explained why either pi or pdi can be zero.
Gray
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
You are not going to like this Gray - try placebo effect. Do we really know what's in that vaccine anyway, do the constituents reamin relatively constant or do they change them from time to time? Who really knows unless you work with them. Even you get a vaccine analysed independently how can you determine precisely what state of the art is in there?
Tony:
Wrong. It will be assumed that you are pulling regurgitated bovine excrement out of your back side until you post actual documentation. Actually, just post anything you think will support your assertions. I think the only criteria be that it be from after WW II. It should give us an idea of exactly where you are coming from.
What would also help is if you told us what your level in education is, and in what. It seems you have vast gaps of understanding, which is why you are floundering when give data and asked questions.
I, for one, have a degree aerospace engineering. I am quite familiar with Newton's Laws, plus dealing with multi-variable second order nonlinear differential equations, Fourier transforms between time and frequency domains and other bits of engineering mathematics that require imaginary numbers. You will find that there are those here who are chemists, microbiologists and computer scientists who have dealt with evidence, and many have actually had to stand in front of an audience to defend their work. So you'll have to try a bit harder to convince us of your position.
So stop telling us what you think causes diseases, prove it. Prove that germ theory has been wrong for the last 150 years.
Ah yes, placebo effect wiped out smallpox in the wild.
Thanks for proving beyond any possible remaining shadow of a doubt that you're an utter crank with no clue about anything.
You are not going to like this Gray - try placebo effect.
This just gets better and better.
How long before we tell him that we are all laughing at him?
Wow. I love seeing this. Tony the Overt Germ Denialist versus RI's Covert Germ Denialists. Who R U Picking?
Hey, maybe he can come up with a placebo he can take that'll stop us from laughing.
What? It makes just as much sense as a placebo preventing smallpox.
I, for one, like anything that makes me bust out laughing.
Gray
If I were kneecapped with a crowbar then it may well be one of many causes that appeared to be just one. What about the barsteward who weilded the crowbar and his/her motive for wielding it, and the force used to break the knee cap, he/she may also have had one too many or have been high on drugs or both. Also I may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time or the right place at the right time? I could have said to the crowbar weilder - break my knee cap
now because I'm due for a new prothetic knee anyway!!!!!!
Okay Tony: I just posted at # 119 "The anti-vaccine band: The Refusers; back from the dead. I think you may find my reference of interest and it will answer your question, Do we really know what's in that vaccine anyway....?
Here is the source, available on the internet:
Entire Contents of Pink Book Appendix B
Once you have read Appendix B and can provide any of your references that dispute "what's in that vaccine?", feel free to post it here, so that we can discuss it.
Otherwise, we are just going to assume you are an uneducated-in-immunology troll.
Nobody is denying that, in order for the smallpox virus to cause disease, the person has to be in a place where they are infected by the disease.
The essential claim here, the one you're denying when you reject germ theory, is that if there is no virus, there is no smallpox.
In the crowbar analogy, I don't need to know why the person with the crowbar decided to attack you: if they had had that motivation, but not swung the crowbar (because they didn't have one, or because you were somewhere else, or because there was a uniformed police officer sitting at the bar), your kneecap would not have been injured. If they had swung and missed, you might have been upset, or amused, but your kneecap would not have broken.
@Tony:
Using that reasoning, wouldn't it be impossible to determine if any medicine is actually works?
Dammit, I just hurt myself laughing so much.
Obviously posting # 708 is not mine...I suspect Jacob is "at it again".
Orac, please get this troll and all his sock puppets out of here.
Tony:
Or hired by Tonya Harding, because you are stealing her limelight as a someone who wants attention, but gets it for very wrong reasons.
It looks like Goofus managed to grasp the intent of the analogy, after all, but was too craven to respond honestly to it.
Goofus' argument amounted to the following:
1. Vaccinia virus is not a variola virus.
2. (unstated premise)
3. Therefore vaccinia virus could not have protected against variola virus.
The only premise that can go in 2 and give the syllogism valid form is "Nothing that is not a variola virus can protect against variola virus." Goofus gave us no reason to think that this premise is true, and there is considerable reason to think it isn't, since we can think of countless scenarios where X is not Y and X protects us from Y. My analogy of a seatbelt that protects us from going through the windshield is just one; if Goofus had been able to find any way in which a seatbelt that protects us from going through a windshield in a crash is not an X that protects us from a Y despite not being a Y, she would have pointed it out. Instead, she blathers about eradication of seatbelts and why are there still windshields - and the sad thing is, she probably thinks she's winning some victory by grasping at those irrelevancies. It's sad, really.
@ Tony: The Entire Contents of Pink Book, Appendix B is the reference I provided you. Guess you didn't read it and aren't going to provide us with references that dispute what the CDC states is contained in vaccines.
We can only assume you are an uneducated troll who has no references, eh?
Antaeus,
You shouldn't be using analogies as your escape defense mechanism when you can't handle scientific reasoning. You're just digging yourself deeper into the hole. And besides it's quite embarrassing.
I have said many times and I will say it again: The CDC clearly states:
The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form
of the organism, the better the immune response to the
vaccine
This is the same crap you've recycled all over again. It's not because of the seatbelt that prevented you from going through the windshield but rather the result of a normal driving condition (absence of crash). So what do you think will happen after you parked and you unbuckled the seatbelt, will you just throw yourself out through the windshield. If that's the case, then don't let go of the seatbelts ever. Your windshield must be made of magnet I guess.
What other kind of nonsense are you going to attract?
augustine: "Which one? The one where they directly transfused blood from an infected person or that homemade calf lymph potion?"
Falcon
And which one did not cause death in previously healthy persons?
"But, But, you see, those deaths were justified. The means justifies the ends in Science Based Medicine. Casualties are just part of the business of pharma..I mean Science Based Medicine. It's a war out there. We gotta do what we gotta do. If you're not for us. Then you're against us. So what if a few little people have to die? We can hide those. The benefits outweigh the risk for the rest of us."
Th1Th2:
Note that it does not say they have to be perfectly identical to get an immune response, which was your argument. They only need be similar, and those two viruses are very similar genetically.
Seriously? Tell me, do you think people just choose to have car crashes? Especially if someone else isn't driving safely?Augustine: So, what would you say would be better? Letting millions die each year from smallpox, or a few die from the vaccine? If there's a third choice, please let me know.
If the government is going to kill people under this philosophy that you're in total agreement with, then I'd rather it be my choice to participate in government sanctioned manslaughter.
Augustin:
So, you'd rather that millions of people die without cause? Because you haven't provided a third possibility.
Do you like slavery, Falcon?
Augustine, please answer the question. If you're going to beat us over the heads with your morality, I'd like to get a sense of where you stand.
Gray,
They are genus-related but one virus cannot cause the other disease and vice versa. Sorry but you just failed basic comprehension.
Gray
This is where I stand:
Was Edward Jenner a practitioner of Science Based Medicine? What were his credentials?
Do you think he acquired informed consent of his guinea pig experiment N=1 on a poor 8 year old boy? What do you think would have happened to this poor little boy of a poor gardener had the experiment turned out not so positive for Jenner? Do you think Science Based Medicine would have taken care of him and his parents by making reparations? Or do you think it would have said "Prove it. His death after vaccinia was purely temporal?"
I didn't fail basic comprehension, Th1Th2, you did. They are still similar, and one does confer immunity to the other. There is documented evidence of this! You still haven't explained what you think happened to smallpox, which killed millions in a year before it went extinct.
Do you like slavery Falcon?
Did you know that the benefits of the majority outweighed the risks to the majority?
Pharmaceutical Mission Statement =
"benefits outweigh the risks"
"one virus cannot cause the other disease"
That's rather the point. Vaccinia does not cause smallpox. It is, however, a demonstrated fact that, whatever the degree of similarity between variola (which does cause smallpox) and vaccinia, it is sufficient to produce immunity in nearly all cases. Arguing about the exact degree of similarity is silly.
Don't be silly, Th1Th2.
Not Gray. You're barking up the wrong tree again. Now go get the real squirrel quick! Vamoose!
@augustine: Actually, the only people who benefited from slaver were the slave owners, who were very much not the majority, so I'd say otherwise. So what is it? Millions dying or millions being exposed to a small risk?@Th1Th2: ??? Could you clarify your statement. I never picked argued about the exact degree of similarity other than to point out that it is close enough for the immune system. Seriously, you're asking to believe you and not my own eyes!
Was Edward Jenner a practitioner of Science Based Medicine?. No. Â Science-based medicine, in fact modern medicine of any kind, did not exist at the time. Â Â
What were his credentials? Â Not much, by our standards, so far as I know.Â
Â
Do you think he acquired informed consent of his guinea pig experiment N=1 on a poor 8 year old boy? Probably not.Â
What do you think would have happened to this poor little boy of a poor gardener had the experiment turned out not so positive for Jenner? Â He would have developed smallpox and run a one-in-three chance of death. Â
Do you think Science Based Medicine would have taken care of him and his parents by making reparations? Â No, science-based medicine did not yet exist. Likely no one would have made any reparations. Morality at that time was rather different from today. Â
Or do you think it would have said "Prove it. His death after vaccinia was purely temporal?" Â Oh, you're asking, "what if he had died from cowpox?" Â You appeared to be asking, "what if he had died after deliberate inoculation with smallpox?" But in any case, if he had died with symptoms of either cowpox or smallpox, I would expect Jenner to say that he died of cowpox or smallpox. If, however, he had died with symptoms of rabies or tetanus, or had drowned in a well, or had been killed by a wolf, I would expect Jenner to say that his death after vaccinia was indeed coincidental.
So, are you under the impression that you can successfully attack vaccination by attacking Jenner? Â Because you can't. We'll just laugh at you. Your questions are strongly reminiscent of creationists who think they can successfully attack the theory of evolution by pointing to flaws in Darwin's character. Â Â Â Â
Gray,
Ask him that. It was his plan. And besides that is also your alibi since you claimed there is not a "perfect precaution", remember?
"@Th1Th2: ??? Could you clarify your statement. I never picked argued about the exact degree of similarity other than to point out that it is close enough for the immune system."
Gray Falcon, the troll appears to have been attempting, in its feeble way, to respond to me. Our 'nyms are deceptively similar, you see.
Gray,
A serotype-specific vaccine (current vaccines) is more immunogenic compared to genus-specific vaccine like smallpox vaccine because the former is more similar to the disease-causing microorganism from which it was derived.
In short, a variola vaccine is more immunogenic than a vaccinia vaccine. Therefore, the smallpox vaccine did NOT protect you from the disease nor it had eradicated smallpox.
End of the story.
LW
Oh, are you another atheist? Do theists know your logic, epistemology, metaphysics,etc. Not that it matters. I just want to stick that in my back pocket. It's a pet peeve of mine. Just a little theory. I do admire the atheists on here for their congruency of thought and admiration of vaccines, though.
"Oh, are you another atheist?"
It may have escaped your notice, but there are a large number of Christians and other believers who accept the theory of evolution as the best available explanation for the variety and distribution of life on Earth. Moreover, you will note (oops, sorry, rational people will note) that I said, "Your questions are strongly reminiscent of creationists who think they can successfully attack the theory of evolution by pointing to flaws in Darwin's character." Not all creationists make these invalid attacks.
Th1Th2:
His plan was using a seatbelt, not getting in an accident. Big difference.
\There's a big leap from point A to point B that Th1Th2's not aware of. Both of these quotes indicate that she doesn't know there are value between 0% and 100%. Well, she doesn't even know that children will walk on dirt, and thinks she knows more than every doctor on the planet, and can diagnose people based on a video clip: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_…
"In short, a variola vaccine is more immunogenic than a vaccinia vaccine. Therefore, the smallpox vaccine did NOT protect you from the disease nor it had eradicated smallpox."
This does not follow. A variola vaccine would likely Have protected better than a vaccinia vaccine, but it would have been far more hazardous. That vaccinia was less effective than variola does not mean that it was totally ineffective. If you want to claim that vaccinia was totally ineffective, you need to produce more proof than this.
Augie:
You obviously believe in minimizing risk.
You also believe that the best way to minimize risk is to do nothing.
I suspect you are well experienced in exactly that.
Tbone:
You obviously believe in minimizing risk.
You also believe that the best way to minimize risk is to do everything chemically possible.
I suspect you are well experienced in exactly that.
Gray,
No. Why do you always fail basic comprehension? His original plan was this:
"My analogy of a seatbelt that protects us from going through the windshield is just one; "
Like he said it's between X and Y, that is, seatbelt and windshield.
A variola vaccine would be more specific against variola and less specific against vaccinia, yes.
Well, actually, there is this whole cross-reactivity thingy we keep talking about. For some reason (maybe because the two viruses are closely related, who knows - ah yes, virologists know), the antibodies raised against the vaccinia virus will also bind to the variola virus and be effective at stopping variola.
Ah, I see. On your world, if something is more efficient, that means that the other possibilities have an efficiency of zero. All or nothing.
Botulism toxin is more efficient than arsenic at killing people. However, I wouldn't advise to eat arsenic.
Between the work of Jenner and a few decades of immunology research, antibody cross-reactivity is a well-established phenomenon. It does happen with other antigens, and sometimes in a less beneficial way - it is believed to be the mechanism by which an infection from Corynebacterium jejuni triggers Guillain-Barre syndrom.
Do you have any evidence in support of your claims that vaccinia vaccine does not confer any defense against variola?
None, I'm afraid.
@ All
Seriously, guys, stop it. The two trolls are just baiting you with their binary thinking. They are just a square and a lozenge living in flatland.
Oh!
Just exactly what is a "creationist" anyway?
Hillofants
It's fun watching num nuts pitch, sway, and wallow. I love watching narcissism in action.
A young earth creationist - someone who believes that the world is six thousand years old and was created in seven days as described in the Bible.
Are there other types of creationists or versions? Seriously, I don't know. You guys seem to be good at labeling.
Little Augie:
Yes.
Yes, we noticed.
Actually the labels come from the various groups. There are actually "Old Earth Creationists." Sometimes they do not even agree among themselves. Obviously you have not been paying attention.
Matt Cline
Using that reasoning, wouldn't it be impossible to determine if any medicine is actually works?
Who said it was reasonable?
Here's a quote from THE INDEPENDENT 08.12.03 from Dr Roses based on some 'empirical' evidence re drugs/vaccines:
A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.
Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody."
Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold "total crap". But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years.
"Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues," said one industry scientist. "He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug."
Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of "pharmacogenomics" - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.
The idea is to identify "responders" - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. "I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.
"It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic," he said.
"Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty."
Response rates
Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent
â¢Alzheimer's: 30
â¢Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
â¢Asthma: 60
â¢Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
â¢Depression (SSRI): 62
â¢Diabetes: 57
â¢Hepatits C (HCV): 47
â¢Incontinence: 40
â¢Migraine (acute): 52
â¢Migraine (prophylaxis)50
â¢Oncology: 25
â¢Rheumatoid arthritis50
â¢Schizophrenia: 60
Perhaps even the placebo effect is a red herring as well!!!!!
714 Lilady. The Entire Contents of Pink Book, Appendix B is the reference I provided you. Guess you didn't read it and aren't going to provide us with references that dispute what the CDC states is contained in vaccines.
We can only assume you are an uneducated troll who has no references, eh?
I can't prove what is in vaccines can you? Therefore I can't provide you with references that dispute the CDC's claims. I do not possess the means of doing that.There's enough evidence scattered throughout the net that vaccination and vaccines are problematic - have a look at the court cases. You can 'assume' all you like but you know the old saying: "If you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME" and you have just done that. Is everybody that disagrees with what you might believe an 'unducated troll'. You obviously have more faith in the info put forth by the CDC and regard it as sacrosanct otherwise you wouldn't be taking it at face value - where's your scientific skepticism re; vaccines and their effects there's enough anecdotal evidence for you to smell a rat. Or is it a question of don't rock the boat else I'd be out of a job Lilady?
714 Lilady. The Entire Contents of Pink Book, Appendix B is the reference I provided you. Guess you didn't read it and aren't going to provide us with references that dispute what the CDC states is contained in vaccines.
We can only assume you are an uneducated troll who has no references, eh?
I can't prove what is in vaccines can you? Therefore I can't provide you with references that dispute the CDC's claims. I do not possess the means of doing that.There's enough evidence scattered throughout the net that vaccination and vaccines are problematic - have a look at the court cases. You can 'assume' all you like but you know the old saying: "If you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME" and you have just done that. Is everybody that disagrees with what you might believe an 'unducated troll'. You obviously have more faith in the info put forth by the CDC and regard it as sacrosanct otherwise you wouldn't be taking it at face value - where's your scientific skepticism re; vaccines and their effects there's enough anecdotal evidence for you to smell a rat. Or is it a question of don't rock the boat else I'd be out of a job Lilady?
@ Tony: I provided you with a real reference when you posed the question at # 697, "Do we really know what's in the vaccine anyway, do the constituents remain constant or do they change them from time to time?"
You seem to have gotten information from the internet, "There's enough evidence scattered throughout the net that vaccinations and vaccines are problematic-have a look at the court cases". I merely asked for your source of "enough evidence"....that would be in the form of actual studies from peer reviewed journals.
Tony at # 746, you provided some statistics about medicines/treatments for various diseases including efficacy of treatment for HCV at 47 %. What is the cure rate if HCV is not treated? Please provide references for the spontaneous untreated Hepatitis C cure rate.
I'm just wondering if you rely solely on anecdotal information or you have actually researched anything to back up your statements.
@Tony
The article you quoted says nothing about the placebo effect. Drugs don't have the same effect on everyone. If a doctor prescribes a drug for a patient and it is ineffective she will prescribe a different drug. This has nothing to do with the placebo effect, other than demonstrating that it doesn't work very well, otherwise all drugs would work.
It is a common myth that placebos can cure objective illnesses. The placebo effect is a collective term for a number of different phenomena, including suggestion and regression to the mean. The placebo effect will not cure cancer, broken bones, infections and certainly cannot protect against smallpox.
As for the ingredients in vaccines, there are strict regulations in the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that medicines contain what they are supposed to (unlike the supplement industry - see Gary Null). There are regular inspections, quality control checks etc. Things do sometimes go wrong, but rarely. There would have to be a huge conspiracy if any medicines, including vaccines, were routinely contaminated.
Vaccines are closely monitored for problems that are too rare to show up in clinical trials, and if there is any sign that there is a problem they are often taken off the market until it has been investigated further.
Here's a good article about vaccine safety here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/473436a.html
"The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people"
But that is not a condemnation of the pharmaceutical companies as you appear to believe. The flip side is that the drugs *do* work in 30 to 50 percent. The trick is to find the drug that does work in each given patient and that's what doctors do. It takes trial and error, but they do it. (I think we tried five different asthma medications before finding one that worked for me without intolerable side effects, but we found one.)
It would be great to have a way of determining whether a drug will work for any given person, without having to try it. But it's only *now*, with increasingly powerful computers and increasing knowledge of the genome, that we can hope to have such a test. It is no condemnation of the pharmaceutical companies that they produce drugs that work -- that may be life-saving -- for a significant part of the population, without yet being able to say with certainty, upfront, for whom they will work.
augustine writes:
Oh, so you actually mean germs MOSTLY cause disease?
What you perceive as reason is sometimes quite remarkable to me. This is one of those times.
To your riposte, which I'm sure you thought was a good point when you were writing it:
Yes, in a fashion quite similar to that in which falls from great heights are MOSTLY fatal, in spite of the fact that movie stunt men with the proper equipment and setup, and even the occasional lucky sod, may survive them.
@ Krebiozen: Excellent link...See Tony there is excellent information on the internet, not just anecdotal stories and cherry-picked, misinterpreted statistics.
@ LW: The percentage of "treatment efficacy" for Hepatitis C at 47 % quoted by Tony is somewhat skewed, owing to the fact of "increasing knowledge of the genome"...as you so stated. Genomic Typing of Hepatitis C is used to determine the length of treatment with Pegylated Alpha Interferon and Ribavarin. Statistics for "treatment efficacy" are based on certain factors such as the length of the infection (recently acquired or chronic), the specific genotype and the race (whites respond better than blacks) of the patient and monitoring of viral load and liver enzymes for titration of medication. Based on these parameters, cure rate for genotypes 2 and 3 are between 70-80 % and cure rate for genotype 1 is between 40-45 % Without treatment, the cure rate for Genotypes 1, 2, and 3 is 0 %.
Also on the "internet" for your perusal Tony:
Chronic Hepatitis C: Current Disease Management (NIH)
So, Tony, do you graduate from middle school this week? What are your plans for summer vacation? Will you be providing more laughs on your odd aspects of philosophy, which you do not understand... or on you backwards understanding of science?
Chris
From what I've seen you could do with a few lessons in philosophy yourself then you wouldn't be as quick to laugh at something you haven't a clue about!
From what I've seen you could do with a few lessons in philosophy yourself then you wouldn't be as quick to laugh at something you haven't a clue about!
I take it you endorse the externality of relations?
Tony's single biggest problem seems to be that he believes he can somehow discern THE TRUTH of how the world works from philosophy, without needing actual empirical evidence. It didn't work for Plato, and certainly won't work for Tony.
Krebiozen
Again Krebiozen I agree with much of what you are getting but I think you have too much faith in the good will of Big pharma and its 'agents'. With the technology that we have nowadays it would be relatively easy to 'doctor' any vaccine - no problem, despite any 'strict regulations'. Regulations are often broken are they not?
By the way have you seen this from Scientific American Feb 2009? Quoting verbatim:
A man whom his doctors referred to as âMr. Wrightâ was dying from cancer of the lymph nodes. Orange-size tumors had invaded his neck, groin, chest and abdomen, and his doctors had exhausted all available treatments. Nevertheless, Mr. Wright was confident that a new anticancer drug called Krebiozen would cure him, according to a 1957 report by psychologist Bruno Klopfer of the University of California, Los Angeles, entitled âPsychological Variables in Human Cancer.â
Mr. Wright was bedridden and fighting for each breath when he received his first injection. But three days later he was cheerfully ambling around the unit, joking with the nurses. Mr. Wrightâs tumors had shrunk by half, and after 10 more days of treatment he was discharged from the hospital. And yet the other patients in the hospital who had received Krebiozen showed no improvement.
You did not tell me you were famous!!!!!!!!!
Tony, the one who believes smallpox was eradicated by the placebo effect (which he will never live down), still thinks that the backing of "big Pharma" is why people believe in germ theory, never mind that they didn't exist in Pasteur's time. Or are they some malevolent evil that exists outside of time?
Krebiozen
Having said what you did about 'strict regulations' in the vaccine industry the opening paragraph of this report tends to suggest otherwise. In fact is suggests that the vaccine safety system that's already 'safe' because of the 'strict regulations' is really not that safe at all Quoting:
On June 13-15, 2011, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will meet in Washington, D.C. to discuss recommendations and options for improving the nation's vaccine safety system. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has written and submitted comments supporting independent vaccine safety oversight and is represented on an Advocacy Panel discussion during a June 13 Vaccine Stakeholder meeting. The public can listen to the three days of open meetings via teleconference and offer comments during public comment time June 14-15. Draft recommendations for improving the vaccine safety system have been developed by the Vaccine Safety Working Group (VSWG) of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee(NVAC). The purpose of the June 13 stakeholder meeting is to ask various stakeholders - advocacy groups, organized medicine, pharmaceutical industry, public health, others - for comments regarding the VSWG's draft report and recommendations. The NVAC wil l discuss the recommendations and stakeholder feedback on June 14. The members of the NVAC and health officials at DHHS need to hear from you! This is your opportunity to communicate why and how you want the vaccine safety system to work better.
Source : NVIC Vaccine Newletter June 08 2011
Source : NVIC Vaccine Newletter June 08 2011
Oh, well if Babs Fisher says so, I guess that takes care of that.
@ Tony:
The NVIC has less than no interest in facts or accuracy. They have a long track record of spreading outright lies about vaccination. Search this blog for them to get a small hint of how irrelevant such a claim is.
It's pretty similar to a skinhead complaining that the banks are all run by a Jewish conspiracy.
Gray Falcon
The only malevolent evil that exists outside of time is in your mind before it begins to manifest itself in and through your asinine discourse. Perhaps if your 'quack' gives you a placebo next time you see him/her you might have some chance of curing your affliction!!!! Joking of course, but you take things to seriously like my 'placebo' eradicating smallpox. If you and your cohorts genuinely believe that then pigs might really fly. They can too in the realm of the imaginary, and the placebo can cure smallpox too!!!!!!!!!!! Ask questions like this and you are bound to get answers like mine:
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work?
Your question implies that SPV only gave the impression of working - introducing doubt - did it really work or did it not? Or was there really something else at work that did the trick that we don't know about other than the vaccine itself and the body's reaction(s) to it. So the answer is I haven't got a clue because I do not know all the specific scientific details and neither do you or else you wouldn't ba asking the question.
best regards
Spend a lot of time in front of the mirror, do you?
LW,
How ironic. When PCV13 replaced PCV7 did you also call the CDC and manufacturer's attention to not add more serotype coverage from the previous pneumococal vaccine because as you have said, it's silly for a vaccine to be more similar to the pathogen? Not to mention PCV13 and PCV7 were derived from the same pneumococcal bacteria.
So my argument between variola virus and vaccinia virus is not about their genus-related similarity but rather the smallpox vaccine's gross misrepresentation. The smallpox vaccine is designed specifically for vaccinia and not for variola, the causative agent of smallpox.
Tony@765, could you try answering in English? Because I can't understand whatever language you're trying to use.
@ Tony: I guess you have all the resources at hand to make up your mind including NVIC and other websites such as Age of Autism and that respected medical journal, Huffington Post.
When we who have medical, immunology, epidemiology and science backgrounds provide you with other "sources" and citations, you question our motives.
I think your science limitations are well-suited to anti-vax sites...so why do you keep posting here?
On closer inspection, I think I can make out something. Tony:
My apologies for thinking you were an honest person.
Thanks for answering, but I asked because if germ theory was a hoax, then the smallpox vaccine shouldn't have done anything. So why did it?
Tony--
Gray Falcon didn't claim that a placebo eradicated smallpox. Zie suggested that you were claiming that.
All we have to work with is your text. If you say something and intend it as a joke, but you're taken seriously, insulting the person who misunderstood you isn't going to help communicate. Try saying "That was a joke, I didn't realize people would think I meant it seriously. What I actually meant was X." But "take too seriously" sounds like you're trying to have it both ways: you get to keep the claim out there, but you don't have to defend the claim, because we should know better than to take you "too" seriously.
The only reason people are saying "seemed to work" is that you claimed that the vaccine didn't really work, but only seemed to. However, if it makes you happier: You deny germ theory. Do you have an explanation that does not rely on germ theory for how the vaccine eliminated smallpox?
And this claim not to know is getting old: you keep saying you're ignorant, but somehow your ignorance is never great enough for you to accept information from those who do know.
Tony,
It appears you have misconstrued Gray Falcon's question. His question "Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work?" does not indicate any doubt in his mind that the vaccine did, in fact, work, nor does it indicate that he is in serious doubt of the general mechanism for how it worked. Rather, it's an attempt to get people who have stated that vaccines don't work to explain the observed facts around the eradication of smallpox and the role of the vaccine in that.Your answer, "I haven't got a clue" is perfectly reasonable.N.B. My answer would be that it didn't just seem to work; the vaccine stimulated an immune system response in a very high percentage of people that led to significantly improved resistance to the actual smallpox disease (either full or partial immunity). A mass worldwide vaccination effort was combined with other efforts to restrict the spread of the disease. Deprived of its only known host and unable to become dormant for an extended period, the virus died out in the wild. This is why nobody gets smallpox anymore - which is why nobody vaccinates for it anymore.
Vicki
I have never seen any conclusive scientific evidence that the vaccine actually did eradicate smallpox. What I have seen a while back is info that the vaccine was introduced at the time when a smallpox outbreak was peaking and then the vaccine was credited for its eradication soon after.
What is your take on germ theory? How would you defend it if I asked you to defend it? If you say because it has obviously been proven time and time again scientifically, where can I find all the full theoretical details set out in one document that the majority of microbiologists would accept?
Notice I said theoretical details becasue it is a theory and can only be dealt with at a theoretical level and evaluated in terms of another theory, that may explain things better otherwise its just an unscientific universal empirical generization called a 'theory'.
Heliantus,
Trans: Fingers crossed. In modern Medicine, it happens all the time.
Anyway, that's what Jenner did when he cross-infected the naive child, how the vaccinia virus vaccine were produced from cross-infecting different animals and passed the infection on to humans and and how humans during smallpox vaccination have established a continuous chain of infectious human-animal-human transmission.
Oh I bet you would not recommend anything less than Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver, would you? Why do vaccinologists always fail to give any decent analogy? It makes me think it's a pathognomonic nature of them.
How did you know that vaccinia vaccine is efficient when no commercial variola vaccine has ever been produced to compare it with?
You bet it's well established hitherto. Hint: Nosocomial infections.
So should we be promoting nosocomial infections vigourously rather controlling it so patients can develop antibody cross-reactivity? You tell me.
A, the thingy is learning about confounding factors, and about cherry picking data at the same time. Like that when 95% of the population are vaccinated, the 5% left over are those most likely to have the least access to health care, and the most likely to die. And then, case mortality says nothing about the severeness of an epidemic: a family of three unvaccinated getting infected, with 2 of them dieing, fulfills your description, but only includes 2 deaths. While an epidemic with 10,000 infections had 1000 deaths before vaccination.
LW,
Again, how did you know that the vaccinia vaccine was less effective? To which vaccine did you compare it with to?
Notice I said theoretical details becasue it is a theory and can only be dealt with at a theoretical level and evaluated in terms of another theory, that may explain things better otherwise its just an unscientific universal empirical generization called a 'theory'.
Why don't you just test it out?
@Tony
One reason I chose my pseudonym is that krebiozen is two cautionary tales in one. The first is that a medicine can show promise, but when tested in clinical trials can prove to be useless. This story has claims of falsified trial results, and counterclaims of conspiracies to suppress the drug, which turned out to be nothing but creatine monhydrate.
The other aspect of krebiozen is the tale you repeat. It is often used as evidence that a placebo can cure cancer, and it is indeed an intriguing story, but I think it is important to remember this was back in 1957, it's a study with a sample size of only one, and there have been no reports of such successful treatment of cancer with a placebo since, to my knowledge. Also, lymphosarcoma is one type of cancer in which spontaneous remission often occurs.
As others have pointed out, NVIC is an anti-vaccine organization. There are measures in place to monitor vaccine quality, even if some are dissatisfied with them. I think it is highly unlikely that vaccines routinely contain undeclared ingredients, unless there is a huge conspiracy to lie to us about everything, which I suppose is possible, but if you accept that there is little point in discussing anything.
Mu,
Trans: Who said herd immunity works?
(Threshold: 83-85%)
Meph O'Brien
The body's entire defence system would have probably come into effect as a challenge to the vaccine, including the reticulo-edothelial system, the adenophyseal-suprarenal cortex mechanism, the neural reflex system, the detoxification function of the liver and detoxification mechanisms of the connective tissue. That is of course if the vaccine did in fact work.
There I go and look for a citation for thingy's claims, and what do I find:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html
Can we invoke Orac's law now?
Narad
Hopefully I will!
The body's entire defence system would have probably come into effect as a challenge to the vaccine, including the reticulo-edothelial system, the adenophyseal-suprarenal cortex mechanism, the neural reflex system, the detoxification function of the liver and detoxification mechanisms of the connective tissue.
Aren't these just theoretical entities?
@Mu
Much of what Th1Th2 writes here is from that website. I just ventured there and found a charming account of how smallpox is a disease of filth, and that non-whites suffer from it because, "uncivilized people are just filthy enough to be good subjects for this disease". Lovely.
@ Mu: That would be "Scopies Law"....citation for Thingy's latest "science" is also is available at Mercola.com and Naturaldoc.com
Tony, why don't you ask Thingy where he/she/it went to school, high school and college and what his/her/its qualifications are to comment on a science blog. (I've asked these questions before and also his/hers/its areas of unique expertise and where he/she/it is employed)
Thingy could also provide you with popular websites that explain your type of science...you both should go to those blogs...where your knowledge of science will be appreciated.
Rule # 14 Shut these two trolls down
Narad
OK Norad a scientific theory refers to certain objects and phenomena. The objects and phenomena in question cannot be specified independently of that form of discourse. That doesn't mean that the objects and phenomena cease to exist outside of discourse when we do not speak or write about them. Objects and phenomena are specified entirely within scientific discourse by MEANS of concepts but they are not reducible to the concepts which specify them.
Any 'Testing' takes place entirely within and by means of scientific practice which again is dependent on theory, because the petri dishes, microscopes and other scientific equipment and methods specific to microbiology are also theoretically constructed objects that are used every day in a typical bio lab. So the objects that you refer to are not just theoretical in the sense that petri dishes are not just theoretical, or microscopes or the chair that I'm sitting on. But I cannot refer to them without some form of symbolic mediation Ok?
But I cannot refer to them without some form of symbolic mediation Ok?
No, because you have not demonstrated the existence of plural minds. If you're going to split hairs, you need to begin at the beginning. Otherwise, this is much ado about nothing. You seem to be objecting to the "unobservable," even when it's not really (including the nobody-will-provide-me-with-primary-sources routine). I brought up flush toilets and Representing Electrons for a reason. Do you question the "theory" that your waste winds up at the end of a pipe somewhere?
Lilady
You obviously do not like the idea of free of speech and debate. What do you imply by my brand of science? You obviously don't understand it do you you just slag it off - pray tell us what great contribution to scientifc debate have you made on this blog? Apart from slagging people off. If you don't like what you read you are free to ignore it. I might not like what people say on this blog but I would defend their right to say it O.K. otherwise we're back in Nazi Germany with the Jackboots and Swastickas.
Norad
Do you really know what you are talking about here. If you don't understand what I have said then there is no point in my going any further - I don't have to demonstrate the existence of 'plural minds' what have they got to do with scientific discourse? No I do not object to the 'unobservable' objects and phenomena either.Please write no more crap - because it might not end up at the end of a pipe.
@Tony:
Wait, so if there's a scientific theory that's been conclusively proven, there must be a single document which lays it all out, rather than multiple documents?
Lilady revere
What's rule #13?
Lilady, you're just an old bitter county health nurse. You're not an expert in science or evidence based medicine. You took some outdated clinical classes 40 years ago and you've been to some seminars. You wish you had worked at your holy mecca, the CDC. We get that. We understand that you think the Pink book is the "bible". You yearn for medical significance and meaning. Your time is over. You're finished. Nobody remembers you except as that mean lady with the needles. Get over it. Just tell yourself that you saved millions of lives. It'll be alright then.
If you don't understand what I have said then there is no point in my going any further - I don't have to demonstrate the existence of 'plural minds' what have they got to do with scientific discourse?
Who are you conducting the "discourse" with? You're the one niggling over the inadequacy of "empirical generalizations."
We get that. We understand that you think the Pink book is the "bible".
What do you mean "WE", Paleface?
Does this mean that Thingy/Augie, Augie/Thingy and Tony are insulted? Maybe, they ought to just leave and go to a friendlier blog where their (missing) citations and citations from whale.to will be appreciated. How about Age of Autism...that paragon of web journalism?
Hopefully this thread has died a merciful death, but in case anyone is still lurkingâTony: your pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo is not convincing anybody. Your quoting of the insane maunderings of a few fashionable French postmodernist twatwaffles has us laughing at you, in fact. Your use of the telltale term "discourse" when referring to scientific theories quite frankly brands you as a brainless wanker, like Foucault and Derrida and any of the other morons you've been quoting.
I don't know if there's a scientific equivalent of Godwin's law, but sooner or later every discussion with anti-science types winds up in one place, so I'm going to preempt. "Discourses" are a dime a dozen. Every shaman or witch doctor in history has had some "discourse" that told him if he put this rock and that bone and those leaves and this particular cut of dessicated organ meat in a bag and waved it around, it would bring ruin on his enemies. The only way it ever worked was on someone who shared the same "discourse" to the point of internalizing it so thoroughly that they wasted away from fear. The important point is: These "discourses" only workedâpsychologicallyâon those who shared them. (There's another effect that starts with "p" that you're particulalrly fond of, insert it here if you like.)
Physicists had a "discourse" that told them if they took a small thin sphere of copper and filled it with polonium and beryllium, surrounded that with a sphere of plutonium, surrounded that with a sphere of aluminum, surrounded that with a sphere of RDX and TNT, surrounded that with a sphere of RDX and TNT with very carefully shaped regions of baratol inserted in it, and tickled the whole thing simultaneously with 32 hot-wire detonators, that it would bring ruin on their enemies.
The difference between the physicists' "discourse" and the shamans' "discourse"? It worked. 100,000 of their enemies dead at one go, none of them sharing the "discourse" of modern physics, none of whom knew plutonium from peanut butter, none of whom knew it was coming, no psychological intimidation, justâboom!
So there are "discourses" and then there are "discourses." the impact of most "discourses" is purely psychological and only works on those who share them. Other "discourses" such as the germ theory of disease and nuclear physics actually deal with the real world. Your failure to "believe" in the "discourse" of nuclear physics will not bring all those people in Nagasaki back to life. Your failure to "believe" in the germ theory will not bring back smallpox, unless ironically, you release the germs from where they're still being held in a couple of labs.
In short, some "discourses" are reality and some are crap. Germ theory is reality and postmodernism is crap.
Rev - I still see that you like to betray your ignorance and you still haven't a clue what you are talking about.Nukes will still blow people up but without discourse you can't even conceive one, talk about one, or construct one can you? Unless of course you are a magician. If I am, talking crap then why bother to reply at such length to such crap using incoherent ramblings which are still a form of discourse - unfotunately there's no way you can wriggle out of that one.
Matt
Not necessarily so Matt. But as GT is such a coherent and prevalent theory as it is made out to be in this day and age I thought that somebody somewhere would have done a good job in writing a paper on it - perhaps you would like to try? Otherwise we are left with the belief that it is just an empirical genralization that cannot be defended by a microbiology that claims to be scientifically rigorous but isn't and is just merely a form of systematic empiricism.
That's your deep insight? In order to talk about things we have to be able to talk? Awesome.
@Tony
You are asking for a single document that proves germ theory, but that does not, to my knowledge, exist. Germ theory is built upon a foundation of many thousands of research papers over 150 years or more.
Instead, why not look at some documents that demonstrate that polio virus is the (sine qua non) cause of polio. I provided you with links to those documents and some advice on how to read them. Have you downloaded and read them yet?
BTW, since all forms of discourse are unreliable, perhaps you could explain your objections to germ theory, or anything else, without using one.
Tony, do you never tire of demonstrating your stupidity? You can make up all the "discourses" you want. The shamans and witch doctors constructed their medicine bags or juju or whatever according to "discourses" as well. According to you and the idiots like Foucault who have destroyed your brain, all "discourses" are created equal. Ask the people of Nagasaki about that. Unfortunately you're such a complete blithering idiot I doubt if you're capable of understanding the difference between "works" and "doesn't work". You're just as mindless in your own annoying way an Thingy.
Narad
Who are you conducting the "discourse" with? You're the one niggling over the inadequacy of "empirical generalizations."
What has the question of WHO I am conducting discourse with got to do with my present concerns about the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions in microbiology per se? You now seem to be more preoccupied with demonstrating your thesis that 'plural minds' are at work rather than dealing with the issue of the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions.
Rev - Wrong again. Your rambling discourse betrays your own ignorance and frustration so when nothing much is left you resort to an ad hominem attack and brand me a 'blithering idiot" well thanks for thar Rev.
What do they say (whoever they are)it takes one to know one! Joke of course! One of the aims in psychoanalytic discourse is to 'frustrate the patient' to see what emerges from the depths of the unconscious I'd say yours is pretty interesting if what you say is associated with the discourse of microbiology!
That's some weapons-grade projection there, stupid. Your interminable walls of impenetrable word salad betray some psychological disorder which I won't attempt to diagnose, since unlike you, I know what I don't know.
So when you were busy absorbing all that philosophical crapola, you never learned the meaning of the term ad hominem? Calling you a blithering idiot was not an ad hominem fallacy, it was a simple insult.
"You're an idiot, and your argument is incorrect." is an insult.
"You're an idiot, therefore your argument is incorrect." is an ad hominem fallacy.
Way back about 5000 comments ago I confessed that I didn't know enough philosophy to judge whether Tony was presenting a load of bullshit (or horseshit or bollocks or fetid dingo kidneys or whatever the technical mot juste is) or not. Well now I know.
The Philosopher King doesn't know what the ad hominem fallacy is. Even I, the Philospher Idiot, know what ad hominem means.
That's freakin' hilarious. That's augie-level stupid. That would be like a self-proclaimed microbiologist referring to the MRSA virus.
Tony, you really should be doing that sort of stuff in private, with the door locked and the curtains drawn.
TVRBK
"Otherwise we are left with the belief that it is just an empirical genralization that cannot be defended by a microbiology that claims to be scientifically rigorous but isn't and is just merely a form of systematic empiricism."
You know, conceivably Tony just expressed in relatively few words what his objection to germ theory is: it isn't a mathematical theorem. A mathematical theorem can be proven *true* and there is no possibility that it can be proven false (if it really has been proven). But scientific theories really *are* the product of systematic empiricism, and they can be overturned by new observations. All evidence to date is that measles, for instance, is caused by a virus. Tomorrow we *might* observe that it is caused by evil wishes conveyed by telepathy, but we have no reason to believe that will occur.
Scientists acknowledge that scientific theories are subject to being overturned by new observations. They consider that a strength. Tony considers it a weakness. So there's not much point continuing to discuss it with him.
800 plus comments, more than half by the dolt trolls...let's just abandon the debate with the trolls.
Let that be a lesson, by our posting and wasting time with the fools we feed into their sick need for attention. Next time they post...and there will "next times"...don't ever engage them...maybe they will finally get the idea.
Can't be done. Locked within the DNA of every regular Science Based Medicine blogger is an insatiable appetite to be right and to correct others. It's the "know-it-all" syndrome.
A perfect example is Chris. She can't let any blog end without a science blogger getting in the last word. She calls it necromancer hunting as a rationalization but it's just her expression of her "need to be right" gene.
More severe forms of the genetic expression are when this attitude is expressed in social settings such as parties and family get togethers. In lesser forms, the urge is always there but the blogger is able to suppress it until they can get back to the internet and vent with a support group.
TBruce:
We also know basic logic, which Tony has consistently failed to use. He claims I don't know any philosophy, but it seems he knows less than I do. I have even pointed him to the work of a professor of philosophy, that he has ignored.
On cue. This is one of the more severe cases that I've seen.
What has the question of WHO I am conducting discourse with got to do with my present concerns about the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions in microbiology per se? You now seem to be more preoccupied with demonstrating your thesis that 'plural minds' are at work rather than dealing with the issue of the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions.
What I'm getting at is that your Blobovian lit-crit routine embeds facts about the world in cosmic slop-buckets mediated between disembodied minds through an ether of "discourse." I'm quite sure you're familiar with the term "unconditioned postulate" (like, really sure). There is no epistemological "problem" for a monist materialist, monist idealist, or philosophical nihilist, only for the supernaturalist demanding the externality of relations. Defense of this is logically prior to your demands for "proof."
Not that any of this really matters, since it's pretty clear that this posturing is really just a smoke screen for rank germ-theory denialism.
It occurs to me:
If postmodernism can credibly be used to argue against germ theory, without going the least bit outside its normal applications, what exactly does that say about postmodernism?
The correct answer, of course, is that anyone who tries to apply it to science has a brain-shaped hole in their head.
In short.
Projection, thy name is augustine. What an abject clownshoe you are.
"Otherwise we are left with the belief that it is just an empirical genralization that cannot be defended by a microbiology that claims to be scientifically rigorous but isn't and is just merely a form of systematic empiricism"
Of course, if 'systematic empiricism' is a form of 'scientific rigour' , then it would make very little sense to criticise modern virology on that basis.
One would have to wonder why something that demands empiricism and a systematic approach would fail at being termed rigourous or scientific.
In short, Tonys complaint is utter self-defeating nonsense of the highest order and he should be dealt with as such.
Krebiozen
Instead, why not look at some documents that demonstrate that polio virus is the (sine qua non) cause of polio. I provided you with links to those documents and some advice on how to read them. Have you downloaded and read them yet?
I will do what you advise. I really didn't think that the situation was so bad in imicrobiology when it is thought that empiricism (an epistemology) is the basis of science, and that it really does deliver the 'knowledge' that it claims when I have already demonstrated how such 'knowledge' is problematic. That is because the specification of the conditions in which it is thought to take place presupposes a 'prior knowledge' of those conditions which has nothing to do with science at all and is thus based on a circular argument.
I cannot understand why this has been ignored by so many so-called intelligent people so may be I am an 'idiot' as the Rev says for trying to convince them otherwise.
What I haven't said is that the criticism of empiricist epistemology does not effect the substantive concepts in and of microbiology - there are different forms, and levels of discourse, just as there are different objects and phenomena. Different scientific methods do not all derive from philosophy, but methodology-in-general is based on philosophy. However, I still hold that universal empirical generizations as such are not scientific because its impossible to prove them conclusively.
I will get back to you after I have read the papers that you have suggested.
Best regards
Tony,
Science is based on empiricism, and it does deliver the knowledge it claims. That applies to 'germ theory' (that term makes me cringe now) as much as it does to designing a nuclear reactor. If science didn't deliver the knowledge it claims, planes would be falling out of the sky, and we couldn't be having this conversation.
A person comes to the hospital with pneumonia, a swab is taken and cultured, bacteria grow, different antibiotics are applied to the bacteria, and the one that kills them most effectively is prescribed for the patient. The patient gets better and goes home. This happens thousands of times every day in every developed country in the world. That's empirical knowledge.
Virologists have figured out which enzymes HIV uses to reproduce, and designed drugs to interfere with these enzymes. People who are HIV positive now live for decades longer as a result. That's empiricism in action.
I really don't see what is problematic about science. Who cares about some philosophical semantics about the nature of knowledge when the scientific method allows us to cure childhood leukemia, or perform a successful liver transplant? Maybe you should learn a bit more about the scientific method. Wikipedia has a good discussion of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .
...methodology-in-general is based on philosophy.
Actually, a great deal of methodology-in-general is based on simple pragmatism; not any philosophical decision, just the fact that if you don't get useful or reliable results from any given methodology, you will try different methodologies until you do. What works is kept, although it may be improved. What demonstrably doesn't work is discarded (at least amongst the sane). But to reduce this type of interaction with the physical universe to "philosophy" is to fundamentally miss the point, and really to crawl up one's own backside.
I note that there has been a lot of backside-crawling in this thread. Yikes.
Krebiozen
There's nothing problematic about science, there is a problem if it relies purely on empiricism and reduces all forms of knowledge to experience and calls itself science.
What you are using to specify leukemia, or transplants depends on theory and concepts that are not reducible to experience. That does not imply that you can't cure leukemia or perform operations.You use theory {and maths} to calculate the load on beams when you build a house but they are not reducible to experience. So experience is not a priviledged measure of the validity of the knowledge that you deploy is it? It is not a question of semantics. If the calculations you use for your beams are incorrect then the house you are building will collapse! -its surely down to the calc's based on physics, maths, and structural engineering.
Luna
Everyone seems to get the impression that I am arguing from a philosophical standpoint when I am arguing against it. Philosophy has been hailed as the Master Science because it legislates what can pass as 'knowledge' for the sciences and empiricism and methodology in general derives from it. Pragmatism says the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating' so what! It does nothing more than seek a guarantee - success in practice, but what precisely is the mechanism. We are interested in the mechanism that it really is a pudding we are eating and not a grilled microbiologist, though we THINK we are eating our daily pud!
Proof by repetition based on experience you will say for hundreds of years or longer. What has this empiricist repetition produced? All the established 'obviousnesses' from the most to the least respectable.
Tony,
I'm curious, what do you mean by "All the established 'obviousnesses' from the most to the least respectable"? Do you mean that in the plain English sense that the results of scientific investigation have been obvious?
Tony--
After more than 800 comments, you admit
And you follow that by wondering why people are saying that your theoretical critique is irrelevant to the practice of microbiology.
We appear to all be agreed that your critique doesn't affect the practice of medicine or biology. The only difference is that nobody else here has spent hundreds of posts suggesting that it does make a difference, or that anyone who doesn't see the difference is woefully ignorant or stupid.
Tony,
Science makes models (more or less the same as a theory) that explain observations (experience). A model also allows you to make predictions, and carry out experiments to see if the predictions are accurate. Sometimes a new observation is made that is inconsistent with the model, and the model has to be changed. Sometimes someone comes up with a model that explains existing observations better than the current one. That is the essence of the scientific method. You can experience a model of "germ theory", in a sense, by reading a good textbook of microbiology.
I don't see how this "reduces all forms of knowledge to experience". The model is tested through experience, through observation. No good scientist would ever claim that their model exactly corresponds with reality, just that it is a good approximation, and as science progresses, the approximation gets better.
"Germ theory" is a small part of a larger model that explains thousands of observations about infection, diseases and immunity. I mean no offense, but I don't think you understand how large and detailed this model is - it's mind-bogglingly complex. Take a look at the HIV drug resistance database, or Google "complement cascade" for a small taste of that complexity. I also don't think you understand that a large portion of the model has been thoroughly tested and found to be robust.
If the house doesn't fall down, it is a good sign that your model (physics, maths, and structural engineering) that predicts how much load a beam can bear is a close approximation to reality. That model has been tested repeatedly against experience until it is as robust as possible. That's why it works. The same is true in microbiology.
Scientists are unlikely to take any claims that "germ theory" is incorrect seriously until someone comes up with:
1. Replicable observations that are inconsistent with "germ theory" or
2. A theory or model that explains experimental observations better than "germ theory" does.
Unless you can come up with either of these I see little point continuing this discussion.
Vicki
The critique of empiricism as an epistemology is valid and is coherent, as I have already stated there are different levels of discourse and diffrent orders of concepts that are used as a means to specify objects and phenomena within that discourse.
Empiricist epistemology conceives an independently existeing realm of objects and phenomena that may never the less be correlated with their representations or appropriations in discourse. To deny empiricism is to deny that correlation. It is not to deny forms of existence outside microbiological discourse but it is to deny that existence takes the form of objects/phenomena representable in that discourse since they are a function of the epistemology. The rejection of empiricism in that sense implies a rejection of its epistemological conception of knowledge based on experience. Empiricism in case you have not noticed presupposes the capacity of human experience to function as representation/appropriation and the capacity of human judgement to describe and to compare what is represented in experience. It's clear that those capacities can't be established within the limits of empricist epistemology, since that would entail either a demonstration which rests on what has to be demonstrated, namely the capacities of experience and judgement (the 'established obviousnesses')to function as the means of designation of what is represented/appropriated, or an attempt to theorise the human being in such a way that its attributes of experience and judgement in question and another knowing subject (recall the subject-object structure of epistemology) is not supposed. In that case the subject-object structure of the knowledge process becomes the object of "knowledge' of a transcendental subject and so on, so you end up with an indefinite regress unless you arbitrarily bring that transcendental movement to a halt. But that does not really solve the problem does it? Neither does taking the conditions of the knowledge process (subect, object and relation between them) to be 'absolute' (Read post 622 again if you have not already done that i.e. on what an epistemology must presuppose.
Tony, if you keep dropping these steaming piles of tl;dr in response to simple questions then the few people left who think you might be reachable are just going to conclude that they're wrong in that assessment and you're really an unreachable fool.
So Tony *seems* to be saying (as best I can make out) that all science is invalid because it is based on experience interacting with theory. Why pick on germ theory, then? What can you replace it with that *isn't* based on experience interacting with theory?
Oh, right. Woo.
I'm wondering if #821 is the result of one of those post-modernist gobbledygook generators, and not Tony at all. He refers Vicki to #622, which was a comment from me - I'll save you scrolling up:
If you said that to a Zen master, they would bite you on the bottom and ask, "What hurts?" and, "What kind of discourse/language is 'Aaaarrrgghhh!!!' that constructed the pain in your ass?"
Still stuck in Plato's cave, are we?
I suppose I could see a die-hard metaphysicist getting fussed and bothered by the lack of an ideal form for germ theory; however, as a die-hard empiricist with a strong practical bent, I don't fuss too much so long as the correlations found by empirical research provide useful and accurate results. And germ theory has proven itself imminently useful and accurate in study after study.
Living, as we do, in a world wherein common household appliances can measure time to fractions of a billionth of a second (my home computer has a 2.66GHz clock rate) and constructed with a precision that measures down to billionths of a metre (45nm chip, I think) I think that I can live with the uncertanties inherent in the empirical world.
-- Steve
Only one of these is certainly true. Which is it?
A) 2+2=4
B) Measles virus will certainly kill you.
C) Measles virus will probably kill/maim you.
D) Polio virus will cause clinical disease every time.
E) God doesn't exist
F) Mathematics explain reality.
Five strawman arguments in as many sentences. Not bad, augustine. Seriously, you're not St. Augustine, you're no Thomas Aquinas, you're not even a Duns Scotus.For those of you wanting to know: The real arguments are that A) Measles and polio can kill/main, B) The vaccines can prevent this 99% of the time, but may have minor side effects, C) The fewer people suffering and dying, the better. A lack of knowledge might allow one to argue A and B, but only a monster would argue C.
Correction, my language was ambiguous: A) Measles and polio can kill/main, and have done so, B) The vaccines can prevent this 99% of the time, but may have side effects about one in a million times, and are less harmful than the diseases they protect against, C) The fewer people suffering and dying, the better. A lack of knowledge might allow one to argue against A and B, but only a monster would argue against C.
Only one is true, Gray. Only one.
It doesn't matter a rat's ass whether the premises of a straw man argument are true or false. The fact that they are not the premises which your opponents are actually proposing makes them irrelevant.
Anteus
These are the facts. Does that upset you?
Let's also note that, while empiricism isn't perfect, it is also the ONLY way to gain knowledge about the physical world. There are no alternatives.
Beamup:
Naval gazing just does not work.
Now if you are willing to put pencil to paper you can use mathematics to come up with predictions, like using Fourier transforms to figure out a number of sine waves of certain frequencies and amplitudes make up a random vibration (or a square wave, or a sawtooth wave, etc). But that first required observation of the waves, and Euler figuring out from a power expansion that eix = cos(x) + i sin(x).
But what do I know? Obviously not Tony's fractured philosophy.
Wow, Boring Auger really schooled us all, didn't he? He showed that he's really intensely opposed to any form of ad hominem argumentation, didn't he? It's so clear that he'd never do anything of the sort hims--
Well, never mind then.
The critique of empiricism as an epistemology is valid and is coherent, as I have already stated there are different levels of discourse and diffrent orders of concepts that are used as a means to specify objects and phenomena within that discourse.
It's "valid and coherent" because you merely asserted that there are "different levels of discourse" and "different orders of concepts"? Perhaps a drawing of your cosmic hierarchy would help.
Tony appears to be in love with words, but it definitely comes across as pretentious twaddle. I have certainly read a basic amount of classical philosophy, logic, and the philosophy of science, and I am familiar with the arguments and capable of wading through the verbiage. But where these things can be lucidly and coherently discussed, especially by people like Alan Chalmers and Deborah Mayo, Tony has a lot of shifting goalposts, shifting positions, and many of his statements make just as much sense as claiming that the fatness of the pig is less fuschia than the designated hitter rule.
~My personal suggestion: For a really good dissection of what science is and how it relates both to the physical world and to philosophy, read Alan Chalmers and Deborah Mayo, the ideas they delineate are fabulous for discussion. But further discussion with Tony is pointless unless you have a lot of spare time and an armored forehead. The stuff he dumps here is just self-indulgent word-wanking. (Honestly, I am not one of those people who thinks he is reachable or that he has any interest in learning and understanding, as if this couldn't be guessed.)
For those following at home, note how Augie tries to use framing to make his argument rather than facts or reasoning. In fact, none of these points are relevant to the vaccine or germ-theory debates at all.*
Don't let him fool you, folks, but do take note of his techniques and do be suspicious of others using the same techniques to sell you something.
-- Steve
*B-D appear to be on-base if you only give them a glance-over, but as phrased they are not; no one is claiming that measles or polio are always fatal or always have permanent debilitating effects, merely that those illnesses (and others) did have such effects before they became vaccine-preventable, and that such effects for vaccines are vastly lower than they were in the days before we could prevent these illnesses.
Luna
If you have read a basic amount of classical philosophy and logic as you claim then you should have no problem in understanding my argument and there is no need to refer to anybody else like Chalmers and Mayo is there?. I note that you are also into the pretentious twaddle business too as you call it.
"his statements make just as much sense as claiming that the fatness of the pig is less fuschia than the designated hitter rule".
You took the trouble to respond so it must have struck a nerve somewhere. So in your esteemed opinion what is wrong with the argument against epistemology in general and empiricist epistemology in particular? Which statements do not make sense to you in particular and in what context?
You have just made the accusation that:
"the stuff he dumps here is just self-indugent word wanking".
What specific 'stuff' are you referring to in particular?
Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the 'stuff' is what you claim it to be, without reference to your mentors or what other bloggers have said in the let's ridicule Tony campaign that seems to be well underway now.
Narad
So you are clued up on 'cosmic hierachy' what has that got to do with different levels of discourse and different orders of concepts pray tell, with specific reference to microbiology?
@ Tony:
We understand your argument just fine. It simply happens to be entirely without meaning.
Tony,
You still haven't answered my question: what do you mean by "All the established 'obviousnesses' from the most to the least respectable"? Do you mean that in the plain English sense that the results of scientific investigation have been obvious?
Tony, it's not anyone else's responsibility to prove that your rambling diatribes don't contain a lick of sense; it's your responsibility to demonstrate that they do. Simple as that. If you have read a basic amount of elementary logic you will have no trouble understanding that.
Chris
What precisely are you on about.
I have already stated elsewhere that observation is to a certain extent 'theoretical'. You cannot observe a waveform without a concept of it because you would not otherwise know
what you were observing would you? I bet you can't prove otherwise - if you can let's have the proof. Its ironic that you accept mathematics with respect without question wich has its basis in the imaginary and symbolic domains but do not get the point I am making and accuse me of 'navel gazing' one of your concepts no doubt, but what do you mean precisely by it in my case without being vulgar?
Beamup
If my argument was 'entirely without meaning', then it must have meant something to you to make it possible for you to even make that statement about it.
Antaeus
That's just an easy get out for you Antaeus because you can't prove that my argument about empiricist epistemology is wrong can you?. The only recourse you have is ridicule.
Tony,
So your claim appears to be that the map is not the country... the country is a reflection of the map. Somehow that doesn't sound quite right.
Tony is so lost to rational thought that he thinks it is required for something to have meaning in order for it to have no meaning. Nice.
If you call that "ridicule," I can only take that to mean you have an absurdly broad interpretation of what "ridicule" means.
As for proving that your argument about empiricist epistemology is wrong, I will repeat again that the burden of proof is upon you to present a coherent argument before anyone else has any responsibility to refute that argument.
So you are clued up on 'cosmic hierachy' what has that got to do with different levels of discourse and different orders of concepts pray tell, with specific reference to microbiology?
That was a repetition of my earlier accusation, Tony, and your position has nothing in particular to do with microbiology, so you can bugger off on that one. I suggested an illustration in order to get a better idea of the flavor of your particular supernaturalism. It's easy, man. Start by drawing yourself at the center of "the system."
Beamup
To be able to assert that my argument has no meaning implies that the argument meant something to you because you could not otherwise convey its non meaning to me other than by some form of language.
That all depends on what your meaning of "meaning" is. If you mean that it uses language to convey some thought (however muddled or unclear) then that may be true. If "meaning" is intended to mean significance or coherence, then there is not necessarily any such implication. Remember that "meaning", just like "truth", "falsehood", "beauty" and such is a relative term and not an absolute. Thus an argument could very well have vanishingly small meaning (in the sense of significance) yet still mean something in the sense that the words when put together make more-or-less coherent sentences that map to concepts.
Tony, does this sentence have any meaning: The wallpaper drinks the buttocks thoroughly.
Tony:
That you don't have the mathematical background to understand what I wrote. Which is reasonable given your lack of knowledge of basic science... and philosophy.
Gray Falcon,
That would be a phenomenal premise for a horror movie. Just sayin'.
That or new nanobot-based liposuction technology.
To be able to assert that my argument has no meaning implies that the argument meant something to you because you could not otherwise convey its non meaning to me other than by some form of language.
No, Tony. Do try to put forth some effort. Have you ever had a linguistic exchange in a sleeping dream?
Tony, whatever drugs you were taking when you read all this postmodernist French gobbledygook may have so permanently imprinted it into your neural pathways that you think it makes sense, but trust me, it doesn't. Everything you say in these impenetrable walls of word salad is absolutely without meaning of any kind. You really need to seek psychiatric help if you think you're conveying anything by posting screeds like 821. Let me convey the exact same information you did more succinctly: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously".
Augustine: A) and E) on your list are both true, therefore your premise is incorrect.
Why Reverend, my proposition is that you are familiar with the works of Robert Anton Wilson, and his multi-valued non-Aristotelean logic? True, false, indeterminate, meaningless, game rule or strange loop?
Rev. Battleaxe:
F isn't true?
Jarred C:
I almost said F), too, but on second thought, IMO Mathematics doesn't explain reality, it describes reality.
Here's what I think: After millennia of counting objects and measuring land, a discipline we call mathematics was slowly abstracted from those experiences and yielded propositions that could be used generally, in areas that they hadn't been formulated specifically for.
Centuries of performing mathematics allowed us to abstract from that experience a discipline we called logic, which was secondary to and derivative from mathematics, which is secondary to and derivative from reality.
This is why trying to derive mathematics from logic,as in the Principia Mathematica, was such a bass-ackwards enterprise from the get-go.
Unless I'm wrong, and the Platonists are correct. I will say that in order to contribute anything to mathematics, one has to act as if one were a Platonist.
@Tony:
What I still don't understand is why your arguments about epistemology/discourse/etc presents more of a problem to the establishment of the existence viruses than it does to the establishment of the existence of bacteria. Is it that observing bacteria only involves one level of indirection, while observing viruses has two levels of indirection? That bacteria were stumbled upon without first having any concept of what they were like, while with viruses scientists had a preconceived idea of what they were like and went out looking for them?
This is why trying to derive mathematics from logic,as in the Principia Mathematica, was such a bass-ackwards enterprise from the get-go.
Oh, tish-tosh. I've never had the patience or inclination to wade through the Principia, but one can readily construct the reals from, essentially, counting. I highly recommend Michael Spivak's calculus text.
Wall of Death: The Wall That Eats Asses?
Gray
Tony, does this sentence have any meaning: The wallpaper drinks the buttocks thoroughly.
Yes it means that it has no meaning, unless it appears in the context of a dream linked with other signifiers.
Rev
Sorry to be a pain but as usual you have not yet refuted 'screed 821' - you think you know it all but don't really do you? The argument may be a little hard to understand (for you) but I still get the impression that you get the picture but don't like it because it upsets your 'apple cart' - fruit salad intended. DSMIV applies as much to you as it does to me in that case!!!!!
Antaeus
As for proving that your argument about empiricist epistemology is wrong, I will repeat again that the burden of proof is upon you to present a coherent argument before anyone else has any responsibility to refute that argument.
That's just another 'get out' Antaeus - you can't refute it can you? What is not 'coherent' about it for starters and why?
Tony, why are you here? Do you have any evidence? Oh screw that... do you have a point?
This article is about germ theory and those that do not believe micro-biotic organisms cause disease. If you have an alternate theory of what causes syphilis, tuberculosis, yellow fever, typhus, pertussis, gonorrhea, polio, measles, tetanus, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, mumps, haemophilus influenzae type b, and a bunch of other diseases, please share them with us.
Quoting myself:
With actual PubMed references! Come on, dude! Bring on the references. Show us that measles is something other than a virus! Is it a weakening of a child refusing to see something? (kids with measles are often sensitive to light).
Or some odd refusal to breathe... which happens with pertussis, polio and haemophilus influenzae type b?
You have all the answers. But are they real?
It's maybe a little unfair to bring this up, but on the TPUC link that Narad found, someone called Tony wrote:
If this is the same Tony it perhaps gives us some insight into what is going on here. Just saying.
A small comedy sketch presented for your consideration, entitled "Tony Tries His Hand":
(Scene 1: Interior of a sports arena. THE CHAMP is warming up in the boxing ring, practicing his punches. TONY comes bounding along and clambers over the rope.)
TONY: Whattya say?? I'm here in the ring, it's you and me! Let's go at it, see who's the real champ!
THE CHAMP: ... Who are you?
TONY: I'm Tony! I've studied under the best! Muhammed Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano!
THE CHAMP: Really? You studied under all of them?
TONY: Sure did? I watched the TV at least long enough to learn their names and get a hazy idea of the rules of boxing, and now I'm ready to take you on!
THE CHAMP: Uh-huh. Well, nice meeting you, Tony, but I'm warming up for an actual match, so if you'll let me get to it...
TONY: Ha! That's proof that you don't dare face me in the ring, 'cause I'm too good!
THE CHAMP: I haven't seen any evidence of that. If you'll excuse me...
TONY: Chiiiicken. Bawk-bawk-bawk!
THE CHAMP: There's no need to be immature.
TONY: More proof you're afraid of me! If you weren't afraid you'd get in the ring -
THE CHAMP: I *am* in the ring -
TONY: - and face the terrible onslaught of my fighting fury!
THE CHAMP: *sigh* Okay, show me some of your moves. Maybe if I give you a few pointers you'll go away.
(TONY gets in the center of the ring and begins lurching from foot to foot, arms flailing out occasionally in what he might think are punches. At first there seems to be no pattern to the chaos, but after a while it begins to strongly resemble a number Fred Astaire performed in Top Hat, if Fred had been performing shortly after a major stroke. THE CHAMP watches in appalled fascination. TONY grinds to a halt.)
TONY: There! Impressed, hunh??
THE CHAMP: In a sense. Tell me... I know I'll regret this, but ... when you were 'learning' from those boxing matches on TV, did someone else have the remote control?
TONY: You're a good guesser! But that won't help you avoid my Rocket Punch!
(TONY steps back and windmills his right arm, preparing for a punch that couldn't be telegraphed more clearly by Western Union. Nonplussed, THE CHAMP watches in disbelief, and when the punch is actually thrown, leans a few inches to the side to let it pass completely by.)
TONY: There! I hit you!
THE CHAMP: Uh?
TONY: Had enough yet??
THE CHAMP: I had enough two seconds after you walked in - but where do you get off with this "I hit you!" malarkey?
TONY: Super Robot Tiger Z's Rocket Punch never misses!
THE CHAMP: The relevance of that -
TONY: Therefore, I hit you!
THE CHAMP: - did you escape from somewhere?!
TONY: Yeah, now you're cowering before my might! KEEYAHH!
(THE CHAMP only barely dodges as TONY tries a leaping kick, from which he only barely manages to land without falling.)
THE CHAMP: HEY!!
TONY: Ha! I bet you never saw that one coming!
THE CHAMP: No, I certainly did not! For the very good reason that in boxing, kicking is illegal!
TONY: You're just saying that 'cause you know you're no match for me!
THE CHAMP: No, I'm saying that kicking is illegal in boxing because kicking is illegal in boxing!
TONY: You're just saying that 'cause you know you're no match for me!
THE CHAMP: Oh, this is getting nowhere fast.
TONY: I float like a bee and sting like a butterfly! Hoo! Hah!
THE CHAMP: Look, if you want to be a real boxer, you have to do certain things. You have to learn the rules of boxing, for one...
TONY: Ah am the greatest!
THE CHAMP: And you can't be the greatest at something just by announcing that you are and challenging people to prove you wrong. If you're ignorant of the basics of what you're trying to do, people will turn down your challenges, not because they're afraid of you beating them but because you're wasting their time.
TONY: You're only saying that because -
THE CHAMP: Yeah, yeah. You keep on thinkin' that. I've had enough an' I'm going down to the deli for a good pastrami on rye. Hopefully by the time I get back, they'll have taken you back to whatever home you came from.
(THE CHAMP walks out of the arena. TONY raises his ungloved hands in triumph.)
TONY: Woooeee! I'm the new champ! I've won all the titles! Top of the ladder!
(After a little more lurching and flailing, he slows to a halt.)
TONY: Hunh. Boxing's less fun when you've mastered it. No one's gonna challenge me, after they hear how I whooped The Champ.
(TONY leans on the ropes, contemplative. Suddenly he brightens.)
TONY: I know! I'll go down the courthouse and try some cases; that'll be fun! ... I wonder if they make you pick beforehand which side you're arguing for?
(Exeunt Omnes.)
Krebiozen,
Whether or not it's the same Tony, this is exactly why I suggested Tony to take classes in science - the source materials aren't going to do any good without at least a basic understanding of what the words mean, and those aren't going to be found in a dictionary.
Unfortunately for us, Tony hasn't figured out yet that he can't philosophize himself into scientific knowledge, in spite of the fact that the rest of the world figured that one out several centuries ago.
I will surely have egg on my face if it's a different Tony complaining about germ theory being a "monocausal doctrine."
Antaeus
Very amusing Anataeus - you have gone to much trouble to write that lot and you have definitely missed your vocation.
Krebiozen my intention was not to 'philosphize' myself into anything. My intention was to show by way of argument that empiricist epistemology is untenable, which it is, but that will not stop those who think it's still valid from doing what they do in microbiology, it cannot can it?.
I knew from the outset that I was up against a brick wall however, I have learned much from the EXPERIENCE of putting my head in the lion's mouth. You see I can still use the word 'experience' but I'm not refering to scientific knowledge in doing so and I'm not philosophizing either.
Answer this, if you find something wrong with a 'theory' or anything else in microbiology what recourse do you have? Do you have to keep playing the game to Queensberry Rules like everyone else, or do you at least try to do something about it that would make you very unpopular like me for instance? Trouble is I get the impression that nobody here is willing to admit even the slightest possibility that GT is untenable no matter what sort of argument or evidence is put forth by anyone.
See, Tony, this right here is why we all think you're an idiotâand you keep demonstrating it over and over and over and over....
If you don't accept the prevailing theory, come up with a different one. It's that simple. Propose it, and oh yes, The. Most. Important. Part.âmake a prediction based on your theory that differs from the prediction of the orthodox theory. Absent that, coming up with a new theory that explains the same facts as the old theory with no basis to choose between them is just intellectual masturbation.
Seriously, though, I would advise you not to start with germ theory. Really. Your chance of overturning the germ theory is about equal to your chance of overturning the round-earth theory. You'd do better to tackle something like string theory. Believe me, if you come up with a new theory that explains the physical universe better than string theory or loop quantum gravity or whatever, and makes testable predictions, your Nobel is waiting.
Just as a test, though, before you submit your paper, print it out, print out the Sokal hoax paper, and honestly ask yourself: "Could anybody tell which one was seriously intended if they read them cold?"
Tony,
Let me give you a short history of science lesson. Itâs not from biology, because thatâs not my specialty (note my screen name). Way back in 1808, John Dalton proposed atomic theory: matter is made up of tiny indivisible particles, and each element is composed of identical particles that are different from all of the particles of any other element. About a hundred years later, other scientists discovered atoms are composed of smaller particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons). What happened to atomic theory? Did the new findings invalidate all of Daltonâs ideas? Was the theory overthrown and chemists and physicists started over?
As a matter of fact, no. Chemists still attribute atomic theory to Dalton. His ideas incorporated the scientific evidence available at the time, and even with that limited knowledge he had more right than he had wrong. The thing is that later on, new experimental evidence established that subatomic particles exist, and atomic theory was modified to include the new evidence. Dalton wasnât wrong because he had an incomplete picture. We just have a better picture now.
Biology, virology included, works the same way.
We learn from new evidence, and improve our theories to include it. Thatâs science.
But do keep this in mind: as the Very Reverend said above, itâs experimental evidence that modifies theories, not internet philosophers looking for new experiences. I repeat: experimental evidence. If you wish to challenge science, you have to do with science. Youâre the one who chose to enter our playing field, and when you're here you have to play by our rules.
And I'll repeat this, too: in science we learn from new evidence, and improve our theories to include it.
My intention was to show by way of argument that empiricist epistemology is untenable
But you failed to do so. In fact, you got rather pissy over the possibility of defending the assumptions that you're relying on.
Narad
How so? By providing 'empirical' evidence to prove that empiricist theory of knowledge is untenable???? I think there are some very serious misunderstandings taking place here and it's not all down to me is it? What you are referring to are not my 'assumptions' - insofar as they relate to epistemology they are based on the assumtions of the empiricist theory of knowledge and what it actually claims to be able to establish. How do you define empiricist epistemolgy then in case I've got it wrong?
Chemmomo does have a point - we learn from new 'evidence' but it depends on how that 'evidence' is specified in the first place and the precise conditions in which it was obtained and how we come to arrive at that conclusion - would you disagre?
Experiments are as much dependent on theories and concepts as are the objects and phenomena that are specified by those theories and concepts or do you disagree with that?
You cannot conduct an experiment effectively if you do not comprehend what you are doing i.e. the theoretical and practical aim of the experiment, how to set up the experiment, and the experimental means you are going to use to obtain results can you? If your theoretical work is wrong in the first place which also incorpoates the experimental specifications then so will be the likely outcome of your experimental work. That is because experiments are constructed to demonstrate that the concepts that specify the objects and phenomena in the initial theory are correct and also the specific connections that obtain between them in practical terms.
The discovery of something 'new' presupposes that you have already made changes in your theoretical work otherwise you would have no conceptual means to be able to recognise whatever you are claiming to be 'new' with regard to the particular experiment in question would you? Experience alone can't tell you that can it? If it can then demonstrate precisely how without resorting to philosophical assumptions that claim to be scientifc?
"The discovery of something 'new' presupposes that you have already made changes in your theoretical work otherwise you would have no conceptual means to be able to recognise whatever you are claiming to be 'new' with regard to the particular experiment in question would you?"
Strangely, people have been discovering new things for all of human history, even before they had Tony to help them understand what they had to do in order to discover new things.
Tony,
I think part of the confusion here is because philosophical empiricism is not the same thing as scientific empiricism. Philosophical empiricism argues that our knowledge and concepts can only be based on our personal experiences. Scientific empiricism is about constructing models and then testing them empirically by experiment. Not the same thing at all. I can construct a scientific concept in my head, and then test it empirically, that's scientific empiricism.
I'm also confused because the challenges to philosophical empiricism I am familiar with argue that our knowledge and concepts are not wholly based upon our personal experiences, that there are other ways of knowing besides experience. You seem to be arguing that our knowledge and concepts are not based on our personal experiences at all.
I do disagree because much scientific knowledge comes initially from natural experiments. Someone makes an observation, and constructs a hypothesis that can be tested. Sometimes the hypothesis is disproven, and another has to be made to explain the experimental results.
A good example of a natural experiment related to "germ theory" is the work of John Snow. In the 1850s there were frequent outbreaks of cholera in Britain. The prevailing theory to explain cholera was that it was caused by bad air. Snow was sceptical, and when there was an outbreak of cholera in Soho in 1855 he found that cases clustered around a pump in Broad Street.
From this natural experiment Snow formulated the theory that something in the water from that pump was causing the cholera. He tested this hypothesis by persuading the local council to remove the handle of the pump, and the outbreak ended. The bacteria that cause cholera had been isolated by Filippo Pacini a few years previously, but his work was not widely known.
Another example is the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming. He noticed that mold on his culture plates had killed bacteria. He hadn't carried out this accidental experiment on the basis of any pre-existing theory.
For examples of the hypothesis an experiment is based on being falsified by the experiment you could look at how diseases like scurvy, beriberi and pellagra, which were once thought to be contagious diseases, were eventually found to be vitamin deficiency diseases. Once the original hypothesis (a pathogen) was eliminated, another hypothesis had to be constructed, and then tested.
No, no, no, you misunderstand the scientific method entirely! Experiments are constructed to test the hypothesis, not to prove it. A good experiment sets out to prove a hypothesis wrong. If John Snow had removed the handle of the pump and cholera had continued to rage in Soho, his hypothesis would have been proved wrong. You can never prove a hypothesis right, only prove it wrong. The more attempts to prove a hypothesis wrong fail, the more confident you can be that it is correct, but you can never be 100% sure.
This doesn't follow at all. It is certainly possible for the results of an experiment designed to test a hypothesis to produce entirely unanticipated results which require reworking of theory in order to explain.
In science, when an experiment produces results that don't agree with the predictions of the hypotheses there are three major possible alternatives: you did the experiment wrong; the hypothesis is wrong; there's some unexpected factor that influenced the results not related to what you expected to be testing.
For example, theory used to state that there had to be some medium that light - a wave - traveled through. After all, waves in water don't exist without water; waves in air don't exist without air. If you're moving through that medium, the waves you generate move at different speeds relative to you depending on whether they are headed in the same direction you're going or back the way you came. So logically, if you measure the speed of light in different directions you should be able to find how fast the Earth is travelling relative to that medium.
Only when they did the experiment, they found that the speed of light did not vary based on the direction used to measure it. This was not expected, and required new theory to fully explain.
I still think he is confused because science used to be called "natural philosophy." He obviously does not have the education in science, nor in philosophy, to speak intelligently about either. Chemmomo is right on target to suggest that he take some classes (which would include labs), and as is being noted in more recent comments: he should read up on the history of science.
I find it interesting that he has not come up with any documentation or evidence for his alternative to "germ theory."
This just reminded me of that awful movie, "What The Bleep...". I have a copy of it somewhere (didn't pay good money for it, I hasten to add), but have never been able to sit through it all. At one point the movie explains that initially Native Americans were unable to see the Spanish ships because they had no conceptual framework for them. Only a canny old shaman had the the ability to reorganize his perceptions...
This discussion on the matter begs to differ: http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptu…
For instance, if you have a theory that the diseases which are currently attributed to pathogenic agents are actually the result of poor sanitation, then you should be able to look at the major advances in sanitation and show a statistically significant drop in those diseases greater than any other factor of increase/decrease in the time frame when each sanitation measure would have entered widespread deployment. Of course, such evidence has been looked for, and the fact that it does not exist makes it evidence against the sanitation hypothesis.
If Tony is arguing here from philosophical empiricism (which, to quote the Wiki, is "that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience"), allow me to refute the validity of that premise. The human sensory system is, at best, an unreliable instrument for recording the world around us. Consider the image here: http://goo.gl/4SFn6 If you are like me and many others I have spoken to, you are probably finding it difficult to bring the image of the young woman into focus. It may appear as though the image is distorted, or perhaps it is shifting or "vibrating". The image is perfectly static. It has been modified, probably with something like Photoshop. The woman's head is stretched vertically, and the images of her eyes and mouth have been duplicated. Your brain expects the human face to have certain proportions. The image is constructed such that the upper set of eyes and mouth are spaced correctly relative to the rest of her face, excluding the lower set of eyes and mouth, which are similarly proportionally correct to the rest of her face. Thus, your brain is attempting to construct two distinct images of a human face, while at the same time trying to construct a single image based on the picture. Your brain's attempts to empirically construct knowledge about the image is failing.
Tony:
Here's where I think you're going wrong. The whole point of my little history of science lesson is that scientific theories are NOT STATIC (please forgive the shouting).
Your argument seems to hinge on wedding oneself to a single idea and understanding the universe through it as stated before you began your experiment. That's not how science works.
Unfortunately I don't have time to elaborate on this now but I hope to get a chance to later today.
Tony @ 877
As a matter of fact, what youâve said is not true.
In addition, to the other examples above (Krebiozen @879 re John Snow and Alexander Fleming, Mephistopheles O'Brien @880 re waves), I will refer you again to atomic theory. Hereâs a link for you to read about Ernest Rutherfordâs discoveries and theories: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=50
Please note that during his experiments in 1908, Rutherford expected to be providing supporting evidence for the atomic model of the time, which stemmed from the discovery that atoms held both positive and negative charges âthe atom itself was still considered fairly solid. Rutherfordâs results were completely unexpected: he discovered that any atom includes a lot of empty space. It took him a few years to come up with, test, and refine a new theory which incorporated that new experimental finding, and he published his theory in 1911. And that theory still isnât the end-all-and-be-all of atomic theory today â these days we understand even more.
Youâve accused us of not being open-minded, yet youâre the one whoâs fixed on a particular way of pre-understanding the universe. We're not the ones clinging to dogma in this conversation. If scientists werenât âopen minded,â we wouldnât be able to do science. Youâve now been given multiple examples from different scientific fields showing scientists learning from unexpected results. Different scientists, in different fields â itâs not a fluke. Itâs how we do things.
Please, Tony â take an introductory course including laboratory in any science and find this out for yourself.
If Tony is arguing here from philosophical empiricism (which, to quote the Wiki, is "that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience"), allow me to refute the validity of that premise.
It's not necessary to do so. If one accepts the premise, what changes?
Narad
In case you haven't yet figured it out. Philosophical empiricism as you call it is not limited to that 'Wiki' quote namely "that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience")allow me to refute the validity of that premise.
There are rationalist forms of empiricist epistemology that are still 'philosophical' but unfortunately they fall pray to the same argument as do all epistemologies that attempt to establish 'knowledge' guarantees. 'Wiki' does not mention that or rational forms of empiricism because even 'Wiki' doesn't 'know' it all!
"Heads.
"Heads.
"Heads.
"Heads.
"Heads.
"Heads.
"Heads."
(Stoppard wasn't specifically writing about science there, but it seems relevant.)
In case you haven't yet figured it out. Philosophical empiricism as you call it is not limited to that 'Wiki' quote namely "that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience")allow me to refute the validity of that premise.
I didn't bring up philosophical empiricism or the Wiki definition, Tony. And that's not a sentence.
The simple fact of the matter is that you have failed to demonstrate the slightest bit of practical significance to your case of epistemological constipation. Why should I go on your bad trip? I can assert wholesale nondualism of the Nagarjuna variety, cut out the middleman, and very little changes. Of what does, germ theory isn't a part.
Narad
You really don't understand the argument do you? If you did then you would not have given such an asinine response. You can go on whatever 'bad trip' you like, but don't blame me, I did not invite you personally to go anywhere you got yourself into a 'bad trip'. I'm surprised you are still at it - thought you might have better things to do with your time than keep on replying to me.
You really don't understand the argument do you? If you did then you would not have given such an asinine response.
Tu quoque, Tony, and I mean that literally. I repeat that you have not demonstrated that the smokescreen that you're using both to get you to and to distract attention from your rank germ-theory denialism is of any actual import. Maintaining this evasion appears to be the only "epistemological problem" that is actually in play.
And having "you're not smart enough to understand me" as a fallback position is not particularly impressive.
Narad
Please explain why you think that my alleged 'smokescreen'(empirisist epistemology) as you call it has no actual import. And is a distraction from GT denialism when GT as it stands is based on an empiriciist epistemological position that claims to establish the 'scientific knowledge'that germs and nothing else are the cause of disease?
Here's Orac's quote again:
Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it's not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease.
There are no 'facts' independent of the theories in which they are specified GT is no exception - otherwise you end up with the distinstion/correspondence problems of epistemology/methodology.
What is a 'causitive organism' and what precisely are the specific conditions in which it operates in the host body according to GT?
Also if the precise nature of the 'causative organism' cannot be determined i.e. what the 'causitive organism' actually is and the conditions in which it operates etc, or whether there is any 'causative organism' at work at all in any particular disease how is such evidence thought to 'converge' to support the idea that microorganisms cause disease and bring GT as close to a 'fact' as a scientific theory can be?
Does this imply that GT is not really a scientific 'fact' at all but only close to one (whatever that is supposed to imply) and just an 'idea' (Orac states that) based on empirical generalization - summary descriptions of particular observations from multiple disciplines that are supposed to function as causal law when they are somehow thought to 'converge'?.
Tony,
Of course there are! Theories are developed to explain facts, not the other way around. The idea that we can't recognize a virus unless we know what a virus is, is just silly.
Take a look at an article about tobacco mosaic disease, from 1924. Hopefully you have figured out how to read PDFs by now:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130931/pdf/129.pdf
Notice that although the article uses the word "virus" the authors have little idea of what a virus is.
Tobacco mosaic virus was the first virus identified, and you may find it useful to read more about the work that was done to understand it. If you find some philosophical leap of faith that makes the idea of the tobacco mosaic virus untenable, please share!
"Please explain why stepping into the ring and telling you how my right hook will knock you out is not the same as actually knocking you out!"
Please explain why you think that my alleged 'smokescreen'(empirisist epistemology) as you call it has no actual import.
Because it doesn't. Nothing changes. All the experimental data are still sitting there happily. No other explanations magically spring into being.
And is a distraction from GT denialism when GT as it stands is based on an empiriciist epistemological position that claims to establish the 'scientific knowledge'that germs and nothing else are the cause of disease? [sic]
Because you're not also bitching about everything else in the realm of scientific endeavor that has been slain by your sword of reason. It seems like, oh, say, electricity should be in for a rough ride here too. How do we 'know' that these 'electrons' do what the physicists say they do? Maybe something is terribly amiss.
Narad
Who's paticular 'experimental data' are you taking about here and what precisely are you referring to? Please specify. I see you have not answered the rest of the questions I put to you Narad. I take it that you do not see any problems with regard to all that 'experimental data' that is supposed to be immune from criticism and is 'still sitting there happily' until the cows come home. That's exactly what an epistemology tries to do, render it's brand of 'knowledge' sacrosanct.
I see you have not answered the rest of the questions I put to you Narad.
And you've failed to (1) demonstrate that they're of any practical significance, (2) define "precise and specific conditions," (3) advance any sort of alternate description of the phenomena, and (4) prove the existence of noumena in the first place, if you want to hold yourself to your own standard.
Indeed, perhaps you could quit mincing around and get down to the standard of proof (precise and specific, please) that you're looking for.
Hi All,
I am unversed in science, and in philosophy, in comparison with many of you here.
However, of course I believe that microorganisms are the root cause of many diseases.
I do not understand the position of the germ theory deniers. I think that many diseases or 'dis-eases' are caused by microorganisms, including, perhaps, Hodgkins lymphoma, which has been likened to a human form of crown gall disease.
Naturally, I therefore believe in suitable medication, and in vaccines.
That is not to say that the 'Big Pharma' industry is always right and moral. There is no point in wiping out most of one's GABA receptors by imbibing the anti anxiety medication quipped about earlier in the thread, for example. The benzodiazipines were originally used on circus animals, and then 'mother's little helper' was unleashed on the public, by virtue of one man testing the drug on himself, and his wife saying it made no appreciable difference. What needless tragedy and misery has since ensued!
I see that Morgellon's disease has been mentioned here, by dangerous bacon, as an example of a factitious disease where patients want treatment.
The infectious element will not be elicited by cuture.
That does not mean that the infection is not present.
Perhaps it is not carbon based.
Perhaps it is silicon based, (having its roots in a laboratory).
Perhsps the apical growth can be observed by those willing to look hard enough at the arrangement of fibers just underneath the epidermis.
Patients will initially think it is fungal, and may latch on to candida, or similar fungal infections, that they have read about.
How is it that such patients develop deeper manifestations, such as a clinical picture resembling neurogenic bladder?
Dr Schwartz maintained the infection was probably accidentally released from a lab.
He was crucified.
He was not the only one to state that the fibers seem to grow or travel along the nervous system. He hypothesised that some patients might end up needing hospice care if the proliferation was allowed to grow unabated, (because of the ultimate effects on the spine, or spinal nerves).
Professor Omar Amin is once again advising the CDC. He found a nematode pressing on the nervous supply to a patient's urinary bladder. Please see his publications on the de novo neurocutaneous syndrome. He concurs that this is indistinguishable from Morgellon, right down to the unidentifiable fibers found in the patients' scalps.
If you question long term Morgellons sufferers, you will find that they often report symptoms consistent with a neurogenic bladder, (and/or consistent with irritable bowel disease). They themselves may not have linked the Morgellons to this.
Much earlier in the clinical picture, many will report touching, e.g. an area of scalp furunculosis, and feeling the touch instantly in another area of the body.
The undoubted itching is one thing. Other somatic experiences are consistent with action potentials.
Have a patient extract the smallish grey/white fiber in a comb, and watch how it swirls about like a cobra.
Prescribed medication that removes insect acetylcholine apparently kills this particular fiber.
What kills the relatively small bright scarlet and cobalt blue fibers? Check out Professor Amin's safe use of insect growth regulators.
Some sufferers are using silver medication as an antibiotic.
Better preparations are in existence.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but are some doctors being germ theory deniers here?
We did used to say that asthma sufferers were in thrall to a psychosomatic condition, until allergies were regarded as one of the main factors.
Morgellons is being putatively regarded by some as psychogenic.
The need to belong to internet sites is not that strong.
Orap/pimozide will kill helminths and perhaps arthropod larvae. It may help, but that does not mean the patient is de facto delusional.
Oh, and Tony, could you please verify whether or not you indeed wrote this particular bit of obfuscatory, supernaturalist tripe?
Because, you know, it's not clear to me where the epistemological line is between the obvious concepts of the "electrodynamics of the cell" and its friend, "the extracellular fluid matrix," as compared with the obvious yet secretive put-on known as the "virus."
Narad
I asked you some valid scientific questions about Orac's post on GT, and if you are genuine about defending GT as it stands they need to be answered:
1)What is a 'causitive organism' and what precisely are the specific conditions in which it operates in the host body according to GT?
2)Also if the precise nature of the 'causative organism' cannot be determined i.e. what the 'causitive organism' actually is and the conditions in which it operates etc, or whether there is any 'causative organism' at work at all in any particular disease how is such evidence thought to 'converge' to support the idea that microorganisms cause disease and bring GT as close to a 'fact' as a scientific theory can be?
3)Does this imply that GT is not really a scientific 'fact' at all but only close to one (whatever that is supposed to imply) and just an 'idea' (Orac states that) based on empirical generalization - summary descriptions of particular observations from multiple disciplines that are supposed to function as causal law when they are somehow thought to 'converge'?
The only person doing the 'mincing around' here Narad is you - so answer the questions with your 'standard proof' seeing that there's so much 'converging' evidence out there. Let's see if that proof stands up to scientific scrutiny. If you are not prepared to do that then there's not much point in replying to your obfuscations as they are going nowhere.If GT is invalid at a THEORETICAL level in its present form then how is it supposed to explain the cause of any particular disease effectively? The answer is it can't.
Tony,
I think you misunderstand Orac when he wrote:
There are some diseases that are possibly caused by a pathogen, but that pathogen has not yet been identified. That doesn't mean that "germ theory" fails. There are plenty of diseases that we know with a high degree of confidence are caused by a pathogen.
Have you read the papers about polio that I suggested?
Have you read about the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus?
I suggest you stick to discussing specific diseases believed to be caused by specific pathogens. That would avoid a lot of confusion.
Krebiozen
You may not agree with my arguments but I do seem to get more sensible responses from you mostly.
As you point out:
I suggest you stick to discussing specific diseases believed to be caused by specific pathogens. That would avoid a lot of confusion.
I agree but GT purports to be general theory of disease causation (as it stands)based on general empirical knowledge and that appears to pass as being unquestionably 'scientific'- it is that which creates the confusion.
The polio stuff is in hand I will comment on that in due course. I will also post my comments on the TMV to you soon. I suggest you let Narad answer the questions I put to him if he can, as he seems so full of himself.
Tony, why are you still going at this? You still haven't explained how smallpox was eradicated, why the polio vaccine worked, or anything? Do you really think you can overthrow that much evidence with philosophical twaddle?
Had a chance to check out those papers on gangrene I posted Tony? I believe they all even had html versions.
Tony,
But it doesn't. If it did then it would claim that all disease is caused by "germs" but it doesn't. There are plenty of diseases that are not caused by "germs". I mentioned beriberi, pellagra and scurvy earlier as diseases that were once thought to be contagious, but are now known not to be.
"Germ theory" is really a strawman in disguise. The only times I have ever come across the term is in the context of Pasteur's research, and when people claim it is all wrong.
The science I know and love tells me that under certain circumstances some microorganisms can cause disease in some people. It tells me that you can prevent or cure those diseases by avoiding or killing those microorganisms, or by stimulating the adaptive immune system with a vaccine.
I find it a bit baffling when I find myself expected to defend the idea that these microorganisms always cause disease in everyone, and if that isn't true then they can't be causing disease in anyone. That logic doesn't seem to follow.
I'm sure Narad can answer your questions, but I wouldn't blame him at all if he didn't bother. I agree with him that so far you don't seem to have brought much to the table apart from some misunderstandings about the meaning of causation, and what "germ theory" is actually about.
"it is that which creates the confusion."
No one else here appears to have any trouble understanding the situation.
Just thought I'd point that out so that you could maybe consider where (or rather, with whom) the confusion resides.
That should hopefully re-enable you to consider whether or not it is worth our time for you to continue posting here.
Gray
If you accuse me of 'philosophical twaddle' - you must specify in detail what precisely that 'twaddle'is and how and why you believe I am using such 'twaddle' to overthrow 'that much evidence'. The 'evidence' I have seen so far is largely descriptive rather than explanatory.
Tony, just about everything you've written about epistomology is "twaddle". Likewise, you're ludicrous ideas of what constitutes our current state of knowledge. Seriously, if the principles modern science is so wrong, why do they work? You may as well be trying to disprove that heavier-than-air flight is impossible!
Orac does not say that re GT, the statement is categorical: 'germs are the cause disease'.
He doesn't say they are the sole cause of disease. You're reading more into Orac's words than are really there. Now tell me, if germs aren't a cause of disease, how was smallpox eradicated?
Gray
We must have a lot of 'nutcases' then who have got good jobs at Oxford, Cambridge, and London that accept the stuff about epistemology and you don't - perhaps they'll all get the sack after listening to you, and you still haven't answered the question as requested seeing as you are so knowledgeable and wise.
Tony, I have no problem with all of the people at Oxford, Cambridge, and London who talk about epistemology, because they also know that there's such a thing as indirect evidence. For example, if a man's body is riddled with bullet holes, one does not need a direct eyewitness to know he was shot to death.
Gray
As George Bush Senior would probably say: READ ORAC's LIPS:
Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., THE DENIAL THAT GERMS ARE THE CAUSE OF DISEASE" (capital emphasis mine for those who can't see very well)
and again:
''THE IDEA THAT MICROORGANISMS CAUSE DISEASE"
and again:
First, If it isn't bacteria or other microbes that cause infectious disease, then vaccines are not necessary.
Orac does not say in those quotes that there are any other causes of infectious disease.
Your question re:the eradication of smallpox should be: what were the determinate conditions that led to the eradication of smallpox? That is a valid scientific question. Your question presupposes that the eradication of an alleged 'germ' should be the only answer without further scientific investigation.
Krebiozen
"It tells me that you can prevent or cure those diseases by avoiding or killing those microorganisms, or by stimulating the adaptive immune system with a vaccine".
What about just shoving the needle in with or without the vaccine - do you know what I'm talking about here and I don't mean an acupuncture needle either?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
It seems I misread the term disease, Orac was probably referring to infectious diseases. Tony, there's a difference between theory and fact. Perhaps there are diseases not caused by microorganisms, but that's where the evidence lies. Regardless, they don't always cause disease, and Orac does acknowledge that.The smallpox vaccine was introduced across the world, with mass vaccination programs, followed in very close correlation with the reduction and elimination of the disease. Of course, you tried to suggest it was the placebo effect, so I really can't trust you to be honest or intelligent in what you say.
That wouldn't do anything. Seriously, Tony, do you think the vaccine was the only attempt made to deal with smallpox? The disease has been around for much longer, and for more cures were attempted. If the placebo effect was all that was needed to eliminate it, it would have ended long ago.
Tony complains about Orac's assertion that "MICROORGANISMS CAUSE DISEASE"
Elementary formal logic: A causes B.
Tony further complains that "Orac does not say in those quotes that there are any other causes of infectious disease." The most obvious intended inference from this statement is that Tony attributes to Orac an unstated argument of the form: all B is caused by A.
This is, of course, a failure of basic logic.
I'd like to read Tony's honest answer as to what would convince him that
1. there is/was a virus that could be reliably identified as Variola (and thus unique from non-Variola viruses)
2. Variola virus was a necessary causative agent in the human disease known as smallpox
That's it. Fairly simple request, I think...
101
Orac doesn't state 'A causes B', Orac states "A's Cause B" so don't bother to quote failures in logic when you can't even read the statements correctly.
The only person doing the 'mincing around' here Narad is you - so answer the questions with your 'standard proof' seeing that there's so much 'converging' evidence out there. Let's see if that proof stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Do try to read, Tony. I asked you what your standard of proof is, given that you seem be perfectly happy to wave around the "electrodynamics of the cell" to distract an audience. The problems that I enumerated for you @898 are logically prior to your apparently singularly purposed complaints about invalidity "at a THEORETICAL level."
Do you mean placebos? You are seriously suggesting that a placebo would work as well as a vaccine? There are lots of placebo controlled studies of vaccine efficacy you can look at if you want. I was reading a Cochrane review of acellular pertussis vaccine yesterday, which includes several placebo controlled studies. It found that the vaccine is 84-85% effective at preventing whooping cough as compared with placebo. What is your point?
I read Orac as meaning "some microorganisms cause some diseases". Not all microorganisms cause disease, obviously (the bacteria that are used to make yogurt for example), and not all diseases are caused by microorganisms (pellagra is not caused by a microorganism, CJD isn't caused by a microorganism, and it's transmissible).
"Drinking alcohol causes car crashes" doesn't mean that all car crashes are caused by drinking alcohol or that drinking alcohol always causes car crashes.
As for smallpox, the best scientific understanding available was brought to bear on the objective of eradicating smallpox. The way this was done was by surveillance, isolation and vaccination. Every time a smallpox case was detected by surveillance the case was isolated and the surrounding population vaccinated. This was continued for 30 years until there were no more cases.
We have not seen a single case of smallpox since 1979. The idea that after at least 12,000 years smallpox disappeared during a 30 year eradication campaign by coincidence seems a little far-fetched.
Oh, and Tony, could you learn how to indicate quotation in some fashion?
*eyeroll*
The key point, and where the logic of your comment above fails, is that Orac never states All A or All B in his writings on germ theory.
Since we're being super, extra, obnoxiously pedantic then...Orac's statement that "microorganisms cause disease" is problematic because he actually means "microorganisms cause diseases": he should actually be arguing As Cause Bs (while we're being über-pedantic, apostrophes should not be used for plurals)
Unless one is being deliberately obtuse...looking at you, Tony...or, I suppose, astonishingly ignorant, A causes B is the simplest logical formulation of specific subsets of claims within the framework of germ theory (e.g., smallpox is caused by Variola virus). The theory itself is of the form Some A cause Some B, A being the general class of "microbes" and B being "diseases". The framework of the theory establishes necessary and sufficient conditions (e.g., Koch's postulates) whereby a specific "A" can be determined to be a causative agent in the development of a specific "B" in a reliable and repeatable sense. Naturally, there is not a 1:1 correlation (e.g., many influenza viruses cause influenza, the site of a MRSA infection dramatically alters the presenting disease, individuals vary greatly in immunological capacities and histories).
This is not a weakness or deficiency of the theory, as there is ample explanatory and predictive power within germ theory and other experimentally-derived biological frameworks that account for the complexities of infectious disease.
The only one asserting a "monocausal doctrine" is you, Tony, up in #463 and in other comments. Such a "monocausal doctrine" is a colossally imbecilic straw man. Let it go.
while we're being über-pedantic, apostrophes should not be used for plurals
If you want to be really pedantic, not even the CMOS really subscribes to this as a broad prescription any longer, and it was dead in-house a long time ago in places where it mattered.
OK, Tony, since you're such a whiz-bang hotshot of philosophy, answer one question: why are you, alone of all people, immune from responsibility for following the principle of charity?
The principle of charity holds that one interprets one's opponents' statements in the most charitable and reasonable fashion. When someone writes "Germs are the cause of disease" in the context of contrasting that with the claim "Germs are the consequence of disease," to interpret that as meaning "Germs are the only cause of disease" is already cutting very close to the edge of the principle of charity. To insist that the statement must mean that, after being politely informed that it was not intended to, can only mean one of two things: either you're a pathetic faker who hurls around phrases like "empiricist epistemology" but doesn't understand absolutely basic principles like the principle of charity, or you understand the principle of charity but for some reason you think that you, unlike everyone else on the planet, are exempt from it.
So which is it? Tell us. Don't dance around the question. Don't name-drop Lacan or mention any sort of epistemology. Don't change the subject. Just tell us why you think you get to be immune from the ground rules of debate that every other mature adult accepts.
And if you can't do that, then just shut up.
Krebiozen
No I do not mean placebos. I mean the effect of the actual puncture by the needle on some of the body's systems.It has been called the 'puncture phenomenon' or 'puncture effect'.
101
An apologia for the subset of pure Bull - Orac said what was said, not what Orac ought to have said.
Antaeus
I have never claimed to be any such "whiz-bang hotshot of philosophy" since you are presupposing that I am, shame on you. As far as charity here is concerned there is none for
anyone who is not a 'mainstream' robot. After your moralizing spiel you end by telling me to "shut up". The argument re: 'empiricist epistemology' stands and cannot be refuted by means of Aristotlean logic.
Narad
You are at it again nit picking as usual, I am not a rule following bureaucrat.
Krebiozen
"We have not seen a single case of smallpox since 1979. The idea that after at least 12,000 years smallpox disappeared during a 30 year eradication campaign by coincidence seems a little far-fetched".
I agree, but the action of a particular vaccine is always conditional, and it is never the vaccine alone that eradicates anything.
That is a non-specific effect that is one of several non-specific effects collectively called the 'placebo effect'. A placebo vaccine involves injecting saline instead of a vaccine. You would expect the 'puncture effect' from the placebo, yet placebos are ineffective both in inducing antibodies, and in protecting against disease.
I was not suggesting that it is. That is why I mentioned surveillance and isolation. These measures are also based on "germ theory", or more accurately the understanding that smallpox was caused by a virus that was spread by infected bodily fluids, usually through aerosols from coughing and sneezing. Isolation of a case minimized the number of people who were exposed to the virus, and vaccination protected those who were. All these measures are based on "germ theory" and they worked. No more smallpox.
"Germ theory" is not a mathematical formula or a proposition that can be refuted by logic. Medical science is complicated and messy. Medical research does not deal with absolutes, it deals with probabilities. You seem to be trying to shoehorn a model that involves hundreds of different microorganisms that interact with an extremely complex human immune system into a single logical proposition that can be refuted using simple logic. That's not going to work!
Yes, Tony, I told you to either give us a damn good explanation for why you were flagrantly disregarding a ground rule of debate or to shut up. Just as, if you jumped into the middle of a soccer game and insisted on grabbing the ball and tucking it under your arm, you'd get told to either start playing by the rules of soccer or go home.
If you think you haven't been treated with sufficient "charity" it shows exactly one thing, and that's just what a Dunning-Krueger poster child you are. You've received extraordinary patience despite your obvious ignorance of the basics of both immunology and elementary philosophy and now you're whining because that patience with you has run out? Tough.
You are at it again nit picking as usual, I am not a rule following bureaucrat.
Oh, the irony.
"I agree, but the action of a particular vaccine is always conditional, and it is never the vaccine alone that eradicates anything."
Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that one of the determining conditions of eradication could be the introduction and effective distribution of the vaccine. The short form of this would be 'the vaccine eradicated disease x'. It would be difficult to argue that one is both competant and in possession of sufficient knowledge, yet also argue that one is right to take that statement in its literal form.
I will repeat my previous observation that no-one else here seems to have the difficulty with understanding the basic theories and practise behind germ theory and vaccines that Tony seems to have.
Dedj
"The short form of this would be 'the vaccine eradicated disease x'".
I wish that statement was true. I really do. The claim that vaccination played a major role in eliminating infectious disease still remains unproven. According to G.Dick,in Smallpox: A Reconsideration of Public Health Policies. Progress in Medical Virology 1966: 8: 1-29 vaccination had little effect on smallpox. Smallpox disappeared in countries with little or no vaccination, such as Australia and New Zealand, as well as countries with widespread vaccination.
If that is correct then it is not the vaccine alone that eradicated smallpox.
Cripes Tony...get a grip...start by getting some education about epidemiology of infectious diseases and stop cherry-picking articles for your specious "theories" about world eradication of smallpox. Smallpox eradication was a world-wide effort through a very expensive intensive collaboration of scientists, doctors, nurses and governments which provided those resources.
A few years back, during the WMD scare, I was one of the first public health nurses in my state to receive (repeat) vaccination against smallpox. One qualification was my license as a nurse and my public health experience. Another qualifications was my age (born before 1977) when the smallpox vaccine was discontinued as part of the Recommended Childhood Vaccines list, in the United States. Still another qualification was a history of having been re-vaccinated for foreign travel in 1977. I did not have any untoward reactions to prior vaccinations, did not have any history of immuno-suppression or eczema and I was "willing" to volunteer. Once the vaccination crusted over, my health department set up small clinics and the five nurses who were vaccinated along with me, vaccinated two or three staff from each of our catchment area's hospitals. Fortunately, no further vaccination was required because the WMDs concerns turned out to be a non-starter (political fiasco).
I did however, have the opportunity to meet a retired physician who participated in the world-wide successful effort to eradicate smallpox from the face of this Earth. He was part of the team operating in the Indian sub-continent...by trudging through small villages, identifying individual cases or small outbreaks, vaccinating all contacts first...then vaccinating in an ever-widening circle anyone who hadn't been vaccinated or who had been vaccinated years before. That Tony, is numero uno, when containing an outbreak (of any vaccine preventable disease)...or participating in a heroic effort to eradicate a disease worldwide.
The WHO, in concert with the CDC and other entities targeted polio to be the second disease eradicated from the face of the Earth by 2000. Due to political unrest and wars/displacement of populations, that goal of eradication by 2000 has been delayed. We are very close to achieving that goal however...using the same principles of disease eradication (active surveillance, immunization of contacts, immunization of others in a geographic area) that was used so long ago to eradicate smallpox. Here is the site for you to get information about this worldwide initiative:
Global Polio Eradication Initiative
I suggest you read it thoroughly, using the links provided to track week by week, the success of modern worldwide epidemiology principles and the use of polio vaccine to make polio eradication a reality.
Oh, and if you have any "suggestions" or "theories" that you wish to advance, I suggest you contact the WHO and the CDC to put forth your ideas. (Please don't bother us anymore)
Tony,
When did anyone claim that vaccination alone eradicated smallpox? I explained above that the measures used were surveillance, isolation and vaccination, all based on the "germ theory" you claim is untenable.
I assume you read the article by Dick you refer to, or at the very least the abstract. You wouldn't have repeated what someone on an anti-vaccination website wrote without checking the original source would you? I would be grateful for a link to it, as I can only find a review of the journal it was published in. Did you notice it was published 13 years before smallpox was eradicated?
The author wrote an article for the British Medical Journal just a few years later. He does not express any doubt at all that vaccination is effective in preventing smallpox, but he does question the wisdom of continuing routine mass vaccination in a country in which the disease has been eradicated. Remember that smallpox vaccine had a much higher risk of serious adverse reactions as compared to current vaccines.
Dick writes, "For more than a quarter of a century smallpox has been controlled in the United Kingdom by attempts to prevent importations, the isolation of cases, and the tracing, vaccination, and surveillance of known and probable contacts. This has been highly effective, otherwise there would have been severe outbreaks of smallpox."
"Smallpox disappeared in countries with little or no vaccination, such as Australia and New Zealand, as well as countries with widespread vaccination. "
Given that both appear to have little in the way of previous, purportedly due to isolation and lack of transmigration as well as strict quarantine, it comes as no suprise that they did not require mass vaccination to eradicate smallpox.
Nor, therefore, are they very good examples to use in countering the claim that vaccines helped eradicate smallpox.
Due to the pedantic and highly idiosyncratic nature of your claims and use of terms, I will have to restate the suggestion that no-one else has any trouble with the idea that the claim 'vaccines eradicated smallpox' is not equivilant to 'only vaccines eradicated smallpox', and that the 'vaccine eradicated smallpox' posistion does not require that all the usual mechanisms that cause diseases to ebb and flow be ignored.
It is a 'as well as' arguement, not a 'only because of' arguement. Arguing that vaccine were the determining factor in worldwide eradication of smallpox does not require arguing that they were the only determinant, nor does it require that all the usual co-determinants never produce a case of co-incidental eradication in any local or national case.
You remain the only person, thus far, to display any form of cognitive or intellectual difficulty with the content of the discussion. I would suggest that your constant niggling replies arise out of a difficulty in understanding that other people may be equally or more intelligent and relevantly educated than you, and that they might have already thought of the same things that you have.
All of your replies thus far have demonstrated a profound ignorance of what the mainstream arguements even are, much less provided any sufficient challenge to them for you to be considered a valid or valuable contributor.
Apologies for the spelling in my previous post, I'm currently juggling paperwork and online work.
Krebiozen
Didn't read first article by Dick only some info allegedly quoted from it. I did read your BMJ reference 'Routine Smallpox Vaccination' by George Dick - a highly speculative paper based mostly on assumption, generalization from reports of descriptions of particular observations, and belief.
"For more than a quarter of a century smallpox has been controlled in the United Kingdom by attempts to prevent importations, the isolation of cases, and the tracing, vaccination, and surveillance of known and probable contacts. This has been highly effective, otherwise there would have been severe outbreaks of smallpox."
Notice how Dick includes vaccination here as part of the control measures when it is still an unproven means of preventing smallpox. It could well turn out that the other measures quoted are actually more effective in the eradication of smallpox as opposed to the vaccine - Dick would probably agree but that is also speculation!
Let's just shut this posting down. Tony lives in an imaginary world and simply not worth our efforts anymore.
@lilady
I agree. I'm happy to help to educate someone who wants to learn, but this is a waste of time.
Krebiozen
I am willing to learn when I see the proper scientific evidence instead of lots of speculation and empirical generalizations disguised as scientific evidence. If I live in an imaginary world then I am not alone because there a good few microbiologists there along with me. The problem is they do not even realize that fact. Empiricism is not science it is an easy excuse for lack of evidence and effective explanation. Descriptions of observations do not fully account for the objects and phenomena being observed or the connections that may obtain between them. Theory only seems to emerge as an after thought.I am not trying to invalidate microbiology even though you may think that, but some of the stuff described within it that is supposed to pass as being scientific is just plausible speculation.
Lilady
Your main effort is in providing even more speculation about the effectivity of the vaccine in the eradication of smallpox.
Tony,
What in your view would constitute "proper scientific evidence"?
You could guide him by the hand through every paper ever published on the germ theory or epidemiology or whatever, but at the end of the day, he'd say the conclusions were only one interpretation, filtered through the "discourse" of "penis science" or whatever postmodernist denigration he chooses to apply to it, and since a Yakut shaman would look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion, nothing can be decided.
101 - philosopher
Tony - twat
'Nuff said!
@944: By Tony's standards, we have no evidence that jet engines are what are keeping large airplanes aloft, not knowing everything about jetstreams and spirits of the air.
[...]because the disease was eradicated - by vaccination - before sequencing was available).----LW
The return of Thingy now...for some real scientific information about smallpox, including Thingy's "unique" germ theory and (un)informed garbled theories about immunology, epidemiology and containment of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Thingy might also take a swipe at parents whose children have died from vaccine-preventable disease...it is Thingy's "specialty".
It's pretty clear Th1Th2 isn't interested or capable of honest discussion, the question was: When did anyone claim that vaccination alone eradicated smallpox? To explain: If I said, "A jet plane uses jet engines to fly", I am not implying that the jet engines alone are responsible for flight, the shape of the plane and the mechanical components are also necessary, only that they are an essential component.
Tony lives in an imaginary world and simply not worth our efforts anymore.
No, if he truly lived in an imaginary world, none of this would be necessary. He lives in a supernaturalist world in which "descriptions of observations do not fully account for the objects and phenomena being observed or the connections that may obtain between them" is axiomatically sensible. Hence the pissiness when it's suggested that the externality of relations be subjected to the same scrutiny that he demands of his bête noire.
David N Andrews
Tony - twat
'Nuff said!
Well thanks for that Dave!You use the title MEd â but a Master of Vulgarity is a title that would perhaps be a little more appropriate as it sums you up quite well.
Gray Falcon
I do not think you can compare Aviation engineering with microbiology, Gray can you really? Science does provide the evidence as to what keeps large airplanes aloft, if there was no air they wouldnât even be able to fly - jet engine or no jet engine would they? The jet engine alone doesnât keep the plane aloft anyway does it? Germs alone donât cause disease all by themselves either but GT is presented to the public âas ifâ they do, Orac says so, therefore we must all believe everything Orac says!
The microbiologists must all be right too because of the vast amount of descriptive empirical evidence available for an enthusiastic and scientifically oriented Joe public to wade through between Coronation Street and Eastenders. If they do not understand any of it they can always ask their doctor who doesnât know much about it anyway, he thinks nearly every infection is caused by a âvirusâ or a bacterium. If he doesnât know what the cause is, it is still caused by a âvirusâ! If his flu shot doesnât work and you get the flu â tough! Itâs down to a different strain that the vaccine could not conveniently cater for. If somebody dies or becomes seriously ill after a flu shot or any other vaccine, the vaccine is never the cause as far as the medical authorities are concerned it always involves something else that takes the blame off the vaccine. Yet ironically, germs are hailed as the cause of infectious disease no problem whatsoever and nothing else is involved according to Oracâs version of GT â âmicroorganisms cause diseaseâ. Weird the way this mode of âcausalityâ works, even more weird still is the fact that most microbiologists believe it!
Reverend
Your ignorance still betrays you - so much so, you have now lapsed into Alice in Wonderland phantasies in attempting to speculate as what my position is. What has 'postmodernism' got to do with my criticism of empiricism in microbiology or GT, if I have referred to concepts from Philosophy, Lacan or even Foucault wrt an argument it does not place me squarely in the postmodernist camp does it now? What then is your domain of interpretation Rev? Experience, sensation, the real, the mind, discourse, theory, the facts, reason, microbiology or what??? Lacan would say âwhen faced with a blank sheet of paper he will tell you who is the turd of his phantasyâ. You have revealed yourself to me Rev!
It appears Tony thinks that if something is too complicated for him to understand, it must not be true.
Aaaaaaaaand Tony shows once again what a reprehensible and dishonest oaf he is. Tony has already been alerted to the fact that when Orac said "Germs are the cause of disease," it was specifically in the context of contrast to the claim "Germs are the consequence of disease"; that is, when there is a cause and effect relationship between a germ and a disease, the direction of that relationship is germ followed by disease, not disease creating germ.
It's stupid and dishonest to take that statement out of context and claim that it means "Germs are the ONLY cause of disease" or "Germs alone donât cause disease all by themselves" but that's exactly what Tony insists on doing! And it might have been barely forgivable for Tony to have insisted "this statement made by a supporter of germ theory means that germs are the only cause of disease in germ theory" if he had been able to move on once he learned that he was wrong - but he was too stupid and dishonest for that. Instead of saying, "okay, if germ theorists don't believe that germs are the sole cause of disease, what do you believe on the subject?" he says "Oh, no, once you've said something that I can twist to make you sound like germ theory is a monocausal doctrine, I get to pretend you actually think that forever. Don't bother trying to correct my misunderstanding, because I get too much mileage out of it!"
I generally disagree, quite strongly, with David Andrews' use of personal invective and profanity. But ask me if I can disagree with his characterization of Tony and I must confess that I cannot. Tony is, by his acts, repulsively dishonest and willfully stupid.
Gravity makes things fall down. However, not everything falls down when exposed to gravity (say, if it's sitting on a desk). Therefore, gravity may be the consequence of falling objects rather than a cause?
If they do not understand any of it they can always ask their doctor who doesn't know much about it anyway, he thinks nearly every infection is caused by a 'virus' or a bacterium.
And we have a winner. Enumerate the other sources of infection, Tony (the options are all vulnerable to your own argument). You have left the Bechampian terroir.
Antaeus
I hope that you are not trying to tell me that the only hipocrisy on this blog comes from me.
What DO you believe on the subject honest Antaeus. Let's have your take on the subject, let us see if you can add some more wisdom to a 'shifty' theory. If it is true that I am so repulsively dishonest and stupid that places me in the same camp as 'germ theorists' who deny on the one hand that there are conditions at work other than germs in disease causation and yet also try to affirm the opposite.
Narad
Even if I spelled it out for you it would only be thrown back in my face because you believe what you believe and nothing is going to change that short of a miracle.
Gray
I thought there was nothing complicated about germ theory as it stands, it is rather some of the arguments of those who try to defend it in its present form. So perhaps you can inform me what is the 'complication' you are talking about that has thrown the spanner in the works of my understanding that has led me down the wrong path to the false conclusion that GT is untrue.
Even if I spelled it out for you it would only be thrown back in my face because you believe what you believe and nothing is going to change that short of a miracle.
No, Tony, enumerate the other sources of 'infection'. You seem to accept this as a meaningful word.
Krebiozen
Indeed theories are developed to explain the 'facts' as you state. But the so-called 'facts' donât explain themselves and can't be explained independently of the particular form of discourse in which they are specified whether it is claimed to be theoretical, scientific or otherwise in which those 'facts' are specified.
In the opening paragraph of his discourse Olitsky makes it clear that:
"An examination of the extensive literature which has accumulated since the first description' of mosaic disease in tobacco reveals the fact that the nature of the inciting agent has not yet been definitely determined".
Literature by the way is a form of discourse and in this example Olitskyâs examination of it "reveals the FACT that the nature of the inciting agent has not yet been definitely determined" (my emphasis).
Thus, âfactsâ are always produced; they are the product of definite discursive practices, whether empiricist, theoretical, scientific, philosophical or what have you.
Hereâs a quote from Claude Bernard to illustrate the point:
ââ¦as the fact which the experimenter must verify does not present itself to him naturally, he must make it appear, that is induce it for a special reason and with a definite object.â (An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, Claude Bernard (1865), Trs. By H. Copley Green (1927) p.19)
Krebiozen states that:
ââNotice that although the article uses the word "virus" the authors have little idea of what a virus is.ââ
Does that just refer to the authors of the literature that Olitsky cites on the first page? Or does it mean Olitsky as well, because he does seem to have some idea at the end of the work but itâs not the idea of a bit of lifeless nucleic acid wrapped in a protein coat.
Moreover, if Olitsky did not have some idea of what an âactive agent of mosaic diseaseâ was he would not have been able to design and use an appropriate experimental method in a bid to try and identify it.
Again according to Bernard:
âThe whole experimental enterprise comes from the idea, for it is this which induces the experimentâ. (Bernard, 1865, p.32)
Olitsky states that:
ââThe experiments here reported 5 show, we believe, that the incitant
of mosaic disease of tobacco and tomatoes is a living, multiplying
body, capable of propagation through many generations in an
artificial mediumââ.
This certainly would not go down well with most virologists today who do not believe that viruses are âaliveâ at all. They seem to prefer a reductionist approach to the question concerning the composition and attributes of viruses, although there are some exceptions to that.
In Peter K. Olitskyâs paper there is no further mention that a whole ââvirusââ in the current sense of the term free from everything else in the stew that was actually produced, by that author.
On the first page of the article Olitsky prefers to use the concept of "inciting agent" or âactive agentâ, rather than that of a âfilterable virusâ - a concept that he was well aware of, as well as suspecting that the âinciting agentâ may be filterable.
On page 133 he quotes the work of Doolittle: âDoolittle also found that the upper limit of dilution of cucumber mosaic "virus" at which activity is still present is 1:10,000â.
On page 131 he mentions 'the active agent of mosaic', on page 133 âagent of mosaic disease' and finally on the concluding page 136 'the incitant of mosaic disease of tobacco and tomato plantsâ. Olitsky never concluded that it was in fact a âfilterable virusâ yet could have done so, since the âactive agentâ according to Olitsky was indeed found to be filterable.
Olitskyâs paper does not prove that either â he only âbelievesââ that the experimental evidence shows that the incitant is a âliving multiplying body, capable of propagation through many generations in an
artificial mediumââ â he does not claim to know that for certain. In other words, Olitskyâs experimental evidence is indeterminate and somewhat speculative, although it could be argued that he did produce a TMV âisolateâ but not an isolated Tobacco Mosaic Virus free from other material substances in the filtrates. As far as I know electron microscopes were not around at the time Olitsky wrote that paper so he could not have produced any electron micrographs of the alleged âvirusâ.
However, I think that the concept of an 'active agent of mosaic disease' is probably a more accurate description from the work conducted by Olitsky and probably still applies today. It certainly applies more aptly to the old concept of 'virus' being deployed in Olitskyâs experiments - an innoculum of âpoisonous liquidâ. That is, a âfilterable agentâ of an indeterminate composition, combined with a mixture of other filterable molecular material derived from plant proteins, enzymes, toxins, plant DNA/RNA, and possibly other filterable âvirusesâ in an artificial culture medium. There is nothing in Olitskyâs paper that suggests that all traces of other possible deleterious filterable materials have been effectively removed from the test samples of culture fluid used for inoculation. That is not to say that the diluted culture fluid used in Oliskyâs experiments did not induce mosaic disease in the inoculated plant specimens on interaction.
âDisease agentsâ always have differential means and conditions of action they may play some part in a particular disease process but that does not prove that they are the cause of a particular disease.
Tony,
Olitsky's paper was written in 1925, before anyone understood what a virus is. I was hoping you might follow the history of the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus so you could begin to understand the process by which scientists began to understand what a virus is. Instead you take a historical paper as the current understanding of virology and demonstrate an astonishing level of scientific illiteracy in trying to refute it.
I have really tried my best, but the only conclusion I can come to at this point is that your are either an astonishingly arrogant idiot, or you are deliberately being obtuse.
*Way* back in #873, Tony stated, "My intention was to show by way of argument that empiricist epistemology is untenable, which it is..."
That being the case, I am at a loss to understand why, eighty-six comments later, he is still driveling on about what empirical discovery did or did not show, in 1924 or at any other date. None of it produces knowledge or gives any warrant of epistemological validity, right, Tony? So why doesn't Tony go away and talk to the really smart people, who know that today polio may be caused by the evil eye, tomorrow by the wrath of God, the next day by offended ancestor spirits, and the day after by Martians?
Krebiozen
Is that what you thought I was trying to do? You gave me one paper Olitsky's - so I commented on Olitsky's experimental evidence at the time. True I referred to the modern idea of virus in passing. But does that invalidate all of the comments I made on the paper? What gives you the impression that I was trying to refute Olitsky's paper? Where did I state that?
Twat: "Well thanks for that Dave!You use the title MEd â but a Master of Vulgarity is a title that would perhaps be a little more appropriate as it sums you up quite well."
You're welcome. You're also an irritant. Yes, I am a Master of Education, and good with it. But when I see someone spouting pseudophilosophical shit like you do, I don't think that it's worth any of my skills trying to exchange ideas since you obviously don't understand much: you just post in order to contradict what anyone says to you. Master of Vulgarity? Hmmm... I could go with that. I'm pretty good at it. When I need to be. And I'd say one needs to be when talking to a twat like you.
@ David N. Andrews, M.Ed.,C.P.S.E.
Perhaps I am be of service: I used to be pretty good at devising questionaires. How about a measure of linguistic vulgarity? ( to the exclusion of the many other divers forms of vulgarity) My Obscenity scale will measure the extent of a person's usage, including complexity and creativity in cursing. There's even an acronym lurking, so watchit now.
Your own words?
We now know that Olitsky was wrong in thinking that viruses can be cultured in a medium like bacteria, and attempts to replicate his experiments failed. However he was right in his observation that the causative agent of tobacco mosaic is not easily filterable.
I was trying to point out that science does not proceed the way you have claimed, that scientists do not simply do experiments that support their preconceptions. Often there are mysteries, like the nature of TMV. Attempts to solve the mystery are messy, and people make mistakes, but after many experiments they reach a close approximation of the truth.
Other scientists subsequently crystallized TMV, chemically analyzed it, took electron micrographs of it, determined its structure and figured out how it infects a cell. We now have a good, though not complete, understanding of TMV. Take a look at this article, and see if you still believe that:
I think that the hundreds of scientists referenced in this article have come up with a much better description of TMV based on solid science and replicable experiments.
DW: "Perhaps I am be of service: I used to be pretty good at devising questionaires. How about a measure of linguistic vulgarity? ( to the exclusion of the many other divers forms of vulgarity) My Obscenity scale will measure the extent of a person's usage, including complexity and creativity in cursing. There's even an acronym lurking, so watchit now."
Now you have me totally interested! :)
Lemme work on this after my supper :)
Krebiozen
It was not my intention to try and refute Olitsky's paper,my quote affirms that Olitsky did produce an 'isolate' of something but did not really know what it was.
"Olitskyâs paper does not prove that either â he only âbelievesââ that the experimental evidence shows that the incitant is a âliving multiplying body, capable of propagation through many generations in an
artificial mediumââ â he does not claim to know that for certain. In other words, Olitskyâs experimental evidence is indeterminate and somewhat speculative, although it could be argued that he did produce a TMV âisolateâ but not an isolated Tobacco Mosaic Virus free from other material substances in the filtrates".
You state that:
I was trying to point out that science does not proceed the way you have claimed, that scientists do not simply do experiments that support their preconceptions.
I think that it all depends on the particular science in question and many do proceed from theories. I agree that people do make mistakes but they do not always reach a close approximation to the truth by experiments alone. You will have to be careful there Kreb or you will be branded as becoming too philosophical for the liking of the other bloggers here! You may then end up receiving a similar measure of flak and venomous (viral) riducule from the in-house thought police!
"You will have to be careful there Kreb or you will be branded as becoming too philosophical for the liking of the other bloggers here! You may then end up receiving a similar measure of flak and venomous (viral) riducule from the in-house thought police!"
Oh Tony...personal attacks such as this on our educated erudite Krebiozen colleague and taking swipes at other posters on this site ("in house thought police") NEVER worked for Ugh Troll and it won't work for you. Such prior attempts have resulted in the utmost derision. You've been warned now...so why not stop while you are ahead.
Tony, changing one's ideas based on evidence is central to the concept of science. We You refused to acknowledge that germ theory may hold some validity because people were able to make working applications of it, you insisted we believed germs were the sole factor in causing disease even after we told you otherwise, you didn't even change your belief that the sponsorship of Big Pharma was responsible for germ theory's acceptance when I pointed out to you that it would require the conspiracy to begin before they even existed. The only one here unwilling to let go of their idée fixe here is you!
@lilady
Thanks, I appreciate that. If I do inadvertently come out with some unjustifiable BS I expect to be called out for it. I have learned a lot from this blog, and I hope I continue to do so.
Lilady
There is no 'personal attack' on Krebiozen none whatsoever intended, how do you arrive at the interpretation from what I said??? I was referring to his statement about reaching a close approximation to the truth by experiments alone. What exactly constitutes 'the truth' can be a philosophical question as well as a scientific one hence the warning.
Gray
I agree about changing ideas based on evidence. I do accept what you are saying that germs are not the sole factor in causing disease. Thanks be to that.
Let's go back a bit with Antaeus:
Aaaaaaaaand Tony shows once again what a reprehensible and dishonest oaf he is. Tony has already been alerted to the fact that when Orac said "Germs are the cause of disease," it was specifically in the context of contrast to the claim "Germs are the consequence of disease"; that is, when there is a cause and effect relationship between a germ and a disease, the direction of that relationship is germ followed by disease, not disease creating germ.
Here's Orac's quote, and it was not made in the particular context that Antaeus suggests, in fact the context that Antaeus is referring to comes 7 paragraphs later. This was the Orac quote I had problems with:
"Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., the denial that germs are the cause of disease. Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it's not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease".
That is the quote I was concerned about not what he said later on. Here he is presupposing that there is at least a possibility of a 'causative organism' at work in disease without further specification as to how the causal process is conceived to operate with regard to such an organism.
Here he is presupposing that there is at least a possibility of a 'causative organism' at work in disease without further specification as to how the causal process is conceived to operate with regard to such an organism.
And how do you respond when someone asks you to "turn on the lights"?
So, Goofus is called out for repeatedly using the strawman "germ theorists deny that there are any other factors than germs involved in disease causation" (the fact that the two-word phrase "opportunistic infection" exists in medicine should be enough to show the falsity of this idea.) And what does he do in his reply? He returns back to the same strawman all over again! He's like a broken chess robot that's got its list of "winning strategies" and "illegal moves" switched around; he keeps committing fouls and announcing victory.
Antaeus
How exactly does the causal process operate in an 'opportunistic infection' and how is it specified with reference to the organism in question? How is an 'opportunistic infection' determined?
Narad
Turn them on!
Turn them on!
How do you know what's going to happen when you flip that switch?
"Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., the denial that germs are the cause of disease."
For all his lectures about discourse, Tony seems to have a reading comprehension problem. Orac is describing what germ theory denialists contend, not what Orac himself contends, nor what germ theory actually says. Germ theory denialism is the denial that any microorganism (or "germ") is the cause of any disease under any circumstances, ever. Â Or, if you don't want to belabor the point, it is the denial that germs are the cause of disease.Â
Tony's complaint appears to be that Orac was insufficiently pedantic. It may have escaped the erudite Tony's attention, but this is a blog, and Orac writes informally for his own amusement and the amusement and possible edification of his readers. Â This is not a textbook, an encyclopedia entry, a journal article, or any thing else that requires meticulous proofreading and polishing of every word, with parenthetical comments and footnotes to clarify any possible ambiguity and address every possible question.
Any number of people above have tried to clarify for Tony what Orac meant, to no avail since Tony is determined to interpret Orac's words in his own, least charitable, way, so of course this comment will have no effect on him either. Â Â
I note that apparently the whole excursion into the lack of epistemological warrant of science was a red herring, as Tony has now abandoned it; if he really believed it, then no empirical evidence of any kind would ever justify any conclusion of any kind and therefore there would be absolutely no point in discussing the evidence. Â Â Â
LW
In your apologia for Orac you state that:
"Germ theory denialism is the denial that any microorganism (or "germ") is the cause of any disease under any circumstances, ever. Or, if you don't want to belabor the point, it is the denial that germs are the cause of disease".
The question has already been answered - germs are not the sole factor in the cause of disease, so why repeat the issue? Granted germs may play a part in a particular disease process but what specific part they do play will always depend on definite and specifiable conditions.
Narad
"How do you know what's going to happen when you flip that switch?
You don't if the determinate conditions have changed significantly since you last flipped that switch.
Tony, here's a quote from your very first post here:
So yes, you were arguing that germs were not a cause of disease, but an effect. Revisionism is not a good tactic on a comment thread.
For the most part, the part they play is fixed for a particular germ and disease. How "well" they perform that part and the exact progress of the disease will depend on the strain of germ, the nature of the initial infection, and other conditions (such as immune system behavior, previous exposure, other underlying conditions, etc.).
There are diseases (e.g. scurvy) that do not involve germs at all. There are others (e.g. the common cold) which may be caused by a wide variety (or combination) of germs.
You don't if the determinate conditions have changed significantly since you last flipped that switch.
This is simply shunting epistemology into metaphysics. How do you know if the determinate conditions have changed? What is your method of enquiry?
Narad
The lights won't come on when you flip the switch.
There's nothing epistemological or metaphysical about it unless you make it so in this particular instance.
Unfortunately we still have to use the terms 'know' and 'knowledge' everyday but its not an epistemological or a metaphysical question unless you make it one. Certain sciences do make epistemological claims i.e. when they assert that their 'knowledge' is based on a form of empiricism. But as I have pointed out that does not invalidate other substantive concepts that specify the objects and phenomena of the science in question. I have already explained elsewhere what epistemology tries to do i.e. lay down the conditions in which valid knowledge is possible and why it can't do that because of the inescapable circularity involved in its argument.
The 'method' of enquiry is a discursive one based the concepts, theory, and practice of basic electricity, and also the specification of how lighting and switches work together with the possible problems that may arise under such conditions.
Gray
I did say MAY be an effect
Great post, I learnt a lot from it - in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get - both serious and piss-taking - from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven't provided.Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Great post, I learnt a lot from it - in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get - both serious and piss-taking - from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven't provided.Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Great post, I learnt a lot from it - in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get - both serious and piss-taking - from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Great post, I learnt a lot from it - in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get - both serious and piss-taking - from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven't provided.Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Help! Please?
I've got a friend who is a germ theory denialist. Apart from that, he also insists that as I am the one who is making a claim (i.e. the pathogenic theory is correct) and therefor it is up to me to produce evidence for my claims.
Unfortunately, the easy way out "Germ theory was heavily attacked in its infancy, and if there had not been convincing evidence it would never have taken off." does not budge him.
Also the fact that scientists by now have detailed knowledge of the mechanisms of infection employed be certain pathogens seems to be canceled out by the fact that I cannot explain them in a convincing manner, and also some guy once drank vomit from a cholera victim and didn't get ill. Duh!
Can you point me to any first hand sources of statistical data from precisely described (better even, explained) experiments that I can use as evidence?
Respectfully yours,
A Nonymous