Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Former virologist Stephan Lanka on bacteria [excerpt] ...

This was well known, bacteria cannot be the cause of disease. Professor Henle further solidified this knowledge, he phrased his postulates and said: If you claim that bacteria can be transmitted and then produce their poisons, then you need to identify that bacterium in every case of a disease, which you claim was caused by this bacterium. And that was not the case. Bacteria are only insufficiently identifiable in a test-tube, it can be done only with a few of them. Of all bacteria, which we know based on their performance, only about 2 % are cultivatable and multipliable. And what is defined as a bacterium in the laboratory is not the same as the original bacterium outside. Why?

 

So multiple people are independently exposed to a bacteria and it is purely coincidental that they have the same symptoms and those symptoms are caused by something else, but you can't say what that something else is?

 

If anyone has ever said to have died, from exposure to anthrax, no, I am not obligated to identify what did kill them.

BUT, if I tested you for anthrax, we’d find some. And if I mailed you an envelope of tasteless, white creatine powder, and convinced you it was lethal, at minimum you’d get sick.

Why Panic Caused More Deaths than Radiation at Fukushima

 

Given that you are disputing what others have found, why not? Because you don't want to? Or can't but don't want to be held to any sort of standard of evidence?

Hmmm, such as the effect of unnamed "toxins?"

 

Evidence that bacteria cannot cause disease has already been tendered. But against such evidence, you are clinging to belief that bacteria is harmful. I also just tendered evidence that fear is a known death accelerant.

 

You have done no such thing. Provide a scientific study showing that bacteria are incapable of causing disease.

 

Again ...

Why Panic Caused More Deaths than Radiation at Fukushima

 

Again ...

 

That does not show that bacteria doesn't cause disease.

 

And once again why no study can show that bacteria kills ...

This was well known, bacteria cannot be the cause of disease. Professor Henle further solidified this knowledge, he phrased his postulates and said: If you claim that bacteria can be transmitted and then produce their poisons, then you need to identify that bacterium in every case of a disease, which you claim was caused by this bacterium. And that was not the case. Bacteria are only insufficiently identifiable in a test-tube, it can be done only with a few of them. Of all bacteria, which we know based on their performance, only about 2 % are cultivatable and multipliable. And what is defined as a bacterium in the laboratory is not the same as the original bacterium outside. Why?

 

It does show that other causes may be enetertaines since bacteria doesn’t kill.

 

Actually, it does no such thing. In fact, it doesn't even address bacteria.

 

Bacteria cannot be ruled out as the cause of 1,600 Fukushima deaths then ?

 

The only place I could find that quote is on some very insane message board. You rejected bacteria based upon a random post on "Godlike Productions?" And it is based upon a quote from a guy who never even discovered the specific bacteria, because he died before it was done by his student, who linked anthrax to being caused by a bacteria after his death?

 

“on some insane message board” sounds a little like ad hom to me. Impotent. Like bacteria.

 

Literally the first phrase on the about from that website:

"DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS WEBSITE!"

And yet, you based your medical views on it. Interesting.

 

Sounds like it came from a germ theorist wingnut.

 

Nice attempt to reverse what you did.

 

This is what happened ...

 

Speaking of wingnut, I give you the Father of Germ Theory ...