germ theory is a fraud (4)

It's been... well, it's been. Pro wants you to punish me for his in ability to read beyond the first sentence of a line I posted in R3 and clarified further in R4. He's wrong. I've clearly presented how viruses invade cells, providing detailed links that further explicate the process and even images showing those processes in action. The Flu video he posted supports this, and he doesn't explain how it's wrong, so it's yet another point in my favor. Pro's denial isn't enough. I'll get to these conspiracy theories later. Many diseases don't produce solely flu-like symptoms: hemorrhagic fevers (like Ebola), colds, and polio, to name a few.[37-39] But the fact that symptoms are redundant doesn't prove that all diseases come from the same sources; flu symptoms are produced mostly by the body to kill the virus. Just because our immune response is consistent doesn't mean that the cause of disease is. Infection of the bloodstream is called sepsis, is often quickly fatal, and normally involves so few organisms that they cannot be detected by microscopy, making Pro's preferred method impossible to implement.[40] But most organisms don't infect the bloodstream, and those infections require detection methods that look at other areas of the body. Pro doesn't explain why "looking at live blood" is a) an effective means of diagnosing illness ("there is no scientific evidence that live blood analysis is reliable or effective, and it has been described as fraudulent by means of convincing patients that are ill and should purchase dietary supplements"[41]), and b) the sole effective diagnostic method, as opposed to culturing, histology, or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), to name a few.[42] As for his more *ehem* outlandish claims... The fact that germs cause disease didn't result in the Holocaust. Health has become an industry, for better or worse, but the theory did not create that industry. It's no more blameworthy than the theory of gravity is for plane crashes and suicides; it's a theory, a basis for knowledge, and not a code of conduct. DDT was a poor choice to control for them, but mosquitos are a grave threat to many people, trafficking diseases like malaria, yellow fever and West Nile.[43] That's why they're the deadliest creature.[44] Blaming the choice of DDT on germ theory has no basis in reality, and the response to mosquitos was justified by a basic knowledge of insect vectors. Lastly, vaccination is not murder - it's saved countless lives.[45] Onto summation. Let's be clear: a fact debate requires that we debate facts. Not assertions, not opinions, not interpretations, and not net benefits. Facts. As such, when Pro spends so much of his every round asserting the existence of a massive conspiracy behind every single peer-reviewed paper on infectious disease (a claim requiring a MASSIVE BoP, as he'd have to prove that almost every researcher of the last century and beyond from academia to industry are in on one massive Ponzi scheme involving doctoring of evidence and making outrageous and easily disprovable claims), he wastes his time. Asserting that germ theory has been used to justify terrible things is also a waste because, while that's objectively wrong, it wouldn't matter if it was correct. We're debating whether germ theory is fraudulent, not whether individuals have abused the knowledge that germs exist. He's also spent the entire debate flatly denying the validity of my evidence without explanation or contrary evidence, despite the fact that almost any one of the sources I've presented would negate the resolution on its face. Pro is dead set on making his opinion known, but he's failed to prove it true, let alone meet his conceded burdens. He hasn't proven that holistic medicine works, dropping my evidence that it doesn't, but even if he's absolutely right, that doesn't prove germ theory wrong or fraudulent. This is a debate, one where he's required to prove the resolution he crafted true, and he's utterly failed in that. He tried to shift the burden to me by twisting the definition of germ theory, but he dropped all of my responses, and continues to fail on the clear and obvious definition of the term. Moreover, Pro has now conceded the debate twice, once in the first round and once here. He said in R1 that gut microbes can cause disease in the bloodstream. He now says that "all diseases are really just flu viruses", implying that viruses cause disease. This ends the debate; vote Con because Pro clearly agrees that germ theory applies to at least some diseases. This is a no-brainer. Pro failed to: argue consistent case, meet his burden, or even argue germ theory coherently. For all these reasons, it's an easy decision: vote Con. 37. http://1.usa.gov... 38. http://wb.md... 39. http://mayocl.in... 40. http://bit.ly... 41. http://bit.ly... 42. http://virology-online.com... 43. http://bit.ly... 44. http://bit.ly... 45. http://1.usa.gov...