germ theory is a fraud (4)

I'll spend this round mostly presenting my own arguments, and rebut the remainder of Pro's later. Let's be clear what Pro actually has to prove. He has to prove that germ theory is a fraud, so let's he clear about what this requires of him: The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. To say something is fraudulent is to say that involves deceit or trickery. So, Pro's burden requires him to prove that the evidence behind microorganisms being the causal agents of any disease is all deceit and trickery, that there's absolutely no reliable support for the view that any bacterium, fungus, virus, or molecular parasite causes disease. What's more, it requires that he show that any research produced that supports this conclusion is inherently deceiful, which means that the researchers involved clearly had intent to deceive others with their findings. Note that his opening round satisfies neither of these burdens, and he's actually conceded the debate, stating "that gut bacteria can enter the blood stream and cause disease." Saying that bacterial agents are causal for any disease proves germ theory true, so the debate's already over. But I'll present arguments anyway. 1) Pathogens and Disease If a given disease is specifically associated with a given pathogen to a tremendous degree, then we should assume that that association is not random. Let's look at some examples, and it's simple enough to prove this with just bacteria. We could get into bacteria with whooping cough (caused by Bordatella pertussis),[1] Lyme disease (caused by Borrelia sp.),[2], Psittacosis (caused by Chlamydia psittaci),[3], tetanus and botulism (caused by specific Clostridial species),[4, 5], Legionnaire's Disease (caused by Legionella pneumophila)[6]... Seriously, this list goes on for days, and still excludes every single virus, fungus and molecular parasite.[7] But I'm not here to teach a class on microbiological diseases. And I'm not the one with the burden of proof. Pro will have to show that every single one of these diseases is caused by something else " something non-microbiological " and then explain why these organisms are so often found with these diseases. I'll be interested to see what he comes up with. 2) Establishing Causality How do we do it? It's actually a rather involved process, and those who engage in it don't take it lightly. Any assumptions as to what the causal agent is requires clear and verifiable proof. Initially, Koch's postulates were used, but they are far from perfect. As such, new postulates have been presented by scientists of the 21st century: 1. Nucleic acid sequence from a putative pathogen should be present in most cases of an infectious disease, and found preferentially in those anatomic sites known to be diseased, and not in others. 2. Fewer, or no, copy numbers of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease. 3. As disease resolves, the copy number of pathogen-associated nucleic acid sequences should decrease or become undetectable. Relapse should produce the opposite. 4. When sequence detection predates disease, or sequence copy number correlates with severity of disease or pathology, the sequence-disease association is more likely to be a causal relationship. 5. The nature of the microorganism inferred from the available sequence should be consistent with the known biological characteristics of that group of organisms. 6. Tissue-sequence correlates should be sought at the cellular level, using in situ hybridization of microbial sequence to areas of tissue pathology and to visible microorganisms or to areas where microorganisms are presumed to be located. 7. These sequence-based forms of evidence for microbial causation should be reproducible.[8] A great deal of diseases do satisfy these postulates, as explained in these 2 papers.[9, 10] Among those are polioviruses and Hepatitis C. Pro will have to disprove this as a method for establishing causation. I'd like to point back to step 5 in the new postulates. Pro will have to disprove virulence factors (which are a part of the nature of these microorganisms) that have clear links to illness. If a given virulence factor is produced specifically by a given organism, then the organism is directly linked in causality. For this, it's simple enough to look back at Clostridial species, which produce two of the most powerful toxins known to humanity.[11] I'll be interested to see how Pro can prove that these aren't causative of their respective diseases. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://1.usa.gov... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://1.usa.gov...