germ theory is a fraud (4)

Shifted my ground? My opponent decided to quote a sentence and 2 words from an argument I made in R2, and he thinks I'm shifting my ground because I happened to quote the rest of that second sentence and re-explain the rest? This isn't me shifting my ground. This is my opponent straw manning my argument and then being shocked when I tell him he"s perceived it incorrectly. Pro finally responds to Koch"s postulates, but a) his response assumes bias confirmation without ever proving it, b) he never responds to the postulates I presented in R1, which aren't Koch's postulates, and c) he doesn't explain how those postulates reach incorrect conclusions, despite my presenting examples for him to critique. The rest of Pro's new analysis this round is absolutely baffling, as most of it comes word-for-word from a source he cited 2 rounds ago, which appears to include solely the authors opinions. Viruses are microorganisms. A microorganism, by definition, is "A"microorganism"or microbe is an organism that is so small that it is microscopic (invisible to the naked eye)." Neither my opponent nor I can see a virus unaided by a microscope, ergo a virus is a microorganism. Viruses aren't "merely lifeless fragments of mitochondrial generic debris". Many viruses aren't even composed of DNA, so that makes no logical sense.[25] They encode a wide variety of proteins that are found nowhere in the human genome.[26] Viruses can cause disease, hence the many examples of virulence factors I mentioned earlier in this debate.[27] Pro has also conveniently forgotten that viruses have many virulence factors that allow infection to occur - these are not just through "invaginarions".[28] For the sake of clarity, there are such things as invaginations, which seem to fit what the author is talking about. He does mention phagocytosis, which is a major means by which this process is carried out, and while this can be used to eliminate viruses from a given body, it doesn't explain viral replication or virulence factors, and therefore is not a reasonable alternate explanation for how viruses get into cells. As for photographs being frauds, I suppose the author is referring to all of pictures from peer reviewed sources?[29-33] It's nice to claim, it's quite another to prove. Pro's source is not an expert in this field, he's no authority, and even if he was, Pro needs to show where and how he supports his views, not just assert it. As viruses replicate and make far more of themselves, they are not "dead genomes from disintegrated cells". "Genomes have no characteristics of life whatsoever" is yet another blatantly false statement which ignores the ability of viruses to replicate, evolve, grow, organize and respond to stimuli. Pro's wrong that viruses have no metabolism: viruses require energy for the replication of their genomes and the production of necessary proteins. Pro's right that they have no nervous system or "intelligence" (though neither do a great deal of other organisms), but that doesn't mean they lack sensory apparatus as they have surface receptors. That's all that's required to invade a single cell " no coordination necessary. Pro's right that they cannot replicate themselves, but the same is true for any parasite, including many fungi and bacteria.[34] Cancer cells are not anaerobic. They do require less oxygen than normal cells, but that doesn't mean they require none.[35] Yes, they undergo glycolysis as the major means for acquiring energy, and that process is oxygen independent, but a) all cells can use this pathway, and b) no cell can continually work without oxygen due to a lack of necessary NADH.[36] More importantly, this is a permanent mutation of cells in the human body to a deleterious state. It's not morphing, it's not a response to external stimuli, and the cells can't go back. As for Pro's Paleo Diet source, he should probably read those papers. None of them include the words "Leaky Gut Syndrome" anywhere. Yes, gut disease is bad, but Pro and this website are asserting that there's some common syndrome that is causing practically all gut disease and that none of it is caused by any microorganism. That's an assertion that requires direct and clear support, not to mention refutation of any and all infectious causes of gut diseases, something that Pro is apparently unwilling or unable to do. Either way, assertions aren't proof, and Pro has failed to prove that Leaky Gut Syndrome is real and causal to all gut disease. Back to Pro for one final round of unresponsive claims from biased and ridiculous sources that still fail to affirm the resolution! 25. http://bit.ly... 26. http://1.usa.gov... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://1.usa.gov... 29. http://bit.ly... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://bit.ly... 32. http://bit.ly... 33. http://bit.ly... 34. http://bit.ly... 35. http://bit.ly... 36. http://bit.ly...