apologies for the wall of text
>Chances are they had been previously exposed, developed a immunity and would not be likely to get sick from re-exposure even if the test wasn't flawed from the start.
I've already addressed this in the post you are quoting. You are being willfully ignorant.
>With no way of confirming whether or not they were immune nor whether the got infected without showing symptoms a sample of ten isn't going to amount to any conclusive evidence.
Gotcha. So there are people that get sick from a virus because it's pathogenic, and there are also people that don't get sick from a virus because it's still pathogenic. Makes sense.
And, you're right, but this is actually a major problem for your narrative, not mine. Look, consider this hypothetical: You've discovered some virus and want to see if it's pathogenic. So you have an actual purified sample (good luck getting that) of it and inject that into some lab animals. Now pick a percentage. Say 30% or 60% or even 90% get sick. Would you say the remaining ones already had immunity? What if none get sick? Why can't you just say all of them had preexisting immunity? Where's the line you draw? What's the standard of evidence? All you're doing is speculating.
The point is: you observed some
animals getting sick but you concluded that the virus must have been pathogenic in all cases, and in the general case because to you, it's a foregone conclusion. You're assuming the conclusion (that a particular virus generally causes a particular disease) and working backwards. Begging the question. In this context, germ theory is unfalsifiable garbage.
>The one test that had the best chance of success was the cough test and that test only had 10 subjects.
>just ignore the rest of the study because reasons
Still, you would expect at least 1 person to get sick. Are you really saying that not one virus particle would be present in any of the 100 tests? What are the chances that in 100cc of infected blood total, there wouldn't be a single viral particle? Do you think 2 hours of being transported would cause the virus to die totally? Come on.
>Asymptotic carrier and is not the same as a healthy immune system with t-cells that have the ability to fight the virus, slow its reproduction, and lessen its symptoms. Its not an either/or
It's the same insofar as the proposition goes that X virus causes Y disease. In both those cases no disease develops, so you can't support the claim.
>You cannot be serious. Yes your anecdotal experiment with no control, no measurements, and no evidence has just disproven a thousand years of science.
You asked me a question and I answered it. What's your problem?
Yes, the simple observation that people in close proximity to one another don't always transmit a disease is devastating to germ theory :^)
>thousand years of science
Don't even pretend that miasma theory is consistent with germ theory. The two contradict each other in premise and in conclusion. Plague doctors used to put flowers in their masks because they thought that the "good air" the flowers provide could counteract the "bad air" miasma. Germ theory is only about 250 years old.
>I imagine 96% of people receive a polio shot as children
Antibodies are supposed to destroy a virus by attacking the virus's antigens. If vaccines are effective, the virus shouldn't exist in the given person's body after it's through destroying it.
You should really look into polio, anon. It's almost as big of a hoax as COVID.
The main takeaway is that cases of paralysis correlate much more closely positively with DDT and lead-arsenate insecticide usage than negatively with the distribution of the vaccine. This would also explain why it was considered a seasonal disease, since the insecticide usage was also seasonal. Plus, they changed the diagnosis criteria to be much more strict the very same year that the vaccine was released, which artificially drove down cases in order to claim that the vaccine was effective.
>Congrats you just proved germ theory and the body's ability to develop an immunity through exposure.
You're mixing multiple things together. None of that proves that chicken pox is caused by a virus. You can build immunity to snake venom, but that doesn't mean that snake venom is viral.
The only redditor here is you.
>But it is the best theory we have to date, that fits the observed experiments and correctly predict outcomes of models.
Which experiments prove virus-disease causation for SARS-COV2? Or SARS for that matter? Actually, here's a presentation concerning how Koch's postulates haven't been proven for SARS: https://www.bitchute.com/video/eVa6ZMMvvwoH/
And another discussion from the same guy for those interested: https://www.bitchute.com/video/oLFKZoAsz4fy/
Oh, you mean like the doomsday models for COVID-19? The models f