germ theory is a fraud (4)

Pro likes to assert things without explanation for why he's right. To start, he mentions my "bullying tactics", but never explains why my burdens analysis is wrong. Pro is affirming the resolution. I explained what he has to do to affirm: prove that germ theory is a fraud. If Pro fails to prove that, then I have no burden, since the resolution isn't proven true. I'm not required to prove germ theory is true (though I have). All I'm required to do is show how Pro fails to affirm (spoiler: he has). Pro states that I haven't proved that germ theory is valid, ignoring every single example I presented. He ignores the 21st century version of Koch's postulates that I presented, which provides the means (i.e. the experiments) necessary for determining whether a given organism causes a given disease, and the two papers I presented that show the proof of that causality for several organisms. What Pro does respond to has little to no bearing on the debate. Even if I conceded every response Pro gives, that wouldn't prove the resolution true. But I'll humor him. Pro defends Bechamp's theories by talking about how "[t]he terrain determines the pleomorphic nature of cells," but fail to provide a mechanism that supports this view. It's solely an assertion of how Pro believe nature works. Pro doesn't explain what he means by terrain changes, nor does he provide evidence of such changes altering cells. A human cell is not made up of viruses and bacteria.[15] A human cell does have an organelle called a mitochondria that is thought to have originated as a bacterial endosymbiont, but it cannot transform into a bacterium that can exit the cell and go elsewhere. The human genome has many viruses embedded in it, but that doesn't mean that the cell itself is composed of active viruses since these are dormant and non-replicative.[16] Cells do not morph. Stem cells differentiate, becoming more complex, but that's not morphing, nor is it shifting to "a more primative form".[17] Eukaryotic cells (like human cells) do not suddenly eject all their organelles and rupture their nucleus, nor do they build a cell wall, which is what would be required for a human cell to become a bacterium.[18] Nor do cells ever rupture entirely, leaving behind infectious nucleic acid, which would be required to become a virus.[19] Pro says that Leaky Gut Syndrome causes "the vast majority of human disease." This ignores the fact that it "is a hypothetical, medically unrecognized condition"[20] for which Pro has presented no support. It's a theory presented by alternative health practitioners to to promote alternative health remedies that are entirely unproven, including diets, herbal preparations, and dietary supplements.[20] The rest of this is just Pro asserting that agriculture is responsible for all human disease, which again, comes without any support. So Pro is hedging his bets on a farcicle condition with farcicle causation. Pro's final "quote" is taken out of context. I followed that quote with this: "an organism that's already in one tissue in the body can invade other tissues, as is the case with Pro's own exam[pl]e of gut microbes." An organism moving from one organ to another is "coming from an exterior source or place" to another place. Externality is relative to a given location, and invasion can occur with any externality. But this is moot because I've given a half dozen examples of diseases that result from organisms external to the body. Pro has failed to address a single one of them. He's also failed to address polio and Hepatitis C, which I cited last round. Pro talks about male and female oriented approaches to disease, but a) this seems to be Pro's personal preference rather than a statement of fact, b) just because Pro wants it to be so doesn't mean that the "feminine" approach to disease is accurate, c) as I showed earlier, the remedies he asserts have positive effects on the body are unproven, and d) whether it's male or female is irrelevant to the factual nature of the statement. As for Pro's later questions... Viruses don't "attack." They infect. A virus comes into contact with a host cell, penetrates the cell, and inserts its genetic material.[22] They don't need to see, hear, or have intelligence " viral proteins recognize its target by interacting with specific proteins or sugars on the surface of a given host cell.[23] This isn't a war, where viruses need to be organized into regiments to attack us. It only takes one getting into one cell to many " Influenza, for example, produces 1000-10000 new virions per infection.[24] Back over to Pro to make more unsupported assertions that don't meet his burdens for this long since conceded debate! 15. http://1.usa.gov... 16. http://bit.ly... 17. http://bit.ly... 18. http://bit.ly... 19. http://fla.st... 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://bit.ly... 22. http://bit.ly... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://bit.ly...