Comments of the Germ Denier

Remember the post I made about germ denial, and the link I gave about the guy who refutes them? Well, in his comments section, a germ denial guy decided to speak, which I thought was hilarious. To entertain you guys, here are some of his comments:

I note all the ad hominem attacks, and no one denying that the HIV/ Hepatitis C hypothesis is pretty much based solely on correlation!


Since the wannabe high preistess of science Tara Smith et al have thrown out Kochs postulates, What replacement should be used?

According to you people any partial correlation is sufficent to cause disease now.
A microbe that is in 1/1000 cells, is found in a majority of people with no symptoms(just extend the window period to 10-30 years with HIV and Hepatitis C to get around that), Is not visible in a patients blood or tissues with the Electron Microscope and is harmless when injected into animals can be said to cause disease, as in the case with HIV etc.

What it boils down to is you guys are telling us that correlation should equal causality. Not even a 100% correlation proves causality(All people that die of old age have wrinkles, so wrinkles cause death in old people!) Nevertheless you correlations are much weaker than that, since the vast majority of people with HIV hepatitis C have no symptoms whatsoever (You guys get around that by constantly extending the latent period to decades.)

It’s funny when Reading Orac’s posts about Autism and vaccines, he always states correlations don’t prove causality, even when the cause and effect are seperated by days, ie Moms/doctors/Poling case testifying that right after vaccines they became autistic. Yet with HIV and Hepatitis C Correlations prove causality when they cause and effect are seperated by 10-30 years!

Anecdotal cases of 3 lab workers who got Low t cells etc after years of HIV exposure, but Kids who got autistic right after vaccines don’t! Not saying that either is correct, but surely if you rely on anecdotal cases to finally prove HIV folfilled Kochs postultes as Stephen Obrien did in his NIH fact sheet based on cause an effect seperated by years, than a cause and effect seperated by days would be even better evidence (Vaccines/Autism.)

Funny, once I was reading a blog post by Orac on Cell Phones and cancer, he said, rightly so, it’s difficult to prove causality when the cause and effect are seperated by years/decades, well guess what, all the “evidence” that your favorite microbes HIV and HEP C are soleley based on these types of Long term studies, and unlike the Cell phone studies, they never attempted to control for confounding factors, for they already assumed HIV to be the cause, and weren’t even testing the premise.

Nobody is saying Kochs Postulates are perfect but partial poor corrleations with microbes that are only detectable with the most sensitive PCR’s and are found in people with no disease or symptoms don’t prove causality, or else any harmless microbe can be said to cause disease.


Anecdotal cases of 3 lab workers who got Low t cells etc after years of HIV exposure prove causality I meant to say.


Stop acting like the white trash 90 year old Kookball you are.

Funny how none of you could rebut my posts. You guys dismiss the mercury/autism connection because people getting autistic right after vaccination doesnt prove causation, even when the time lapse between cause and effect is days, yet correlation does prove causation when the cause and effect are seperated by 10-30 years as in the case with HIV and HEP C!

And you heard me, the only evidence in support of HIV and HEP C is correlation. Chimpanzees injected don’t get sick, these deadly viruses are only in 1/1000 cells and are not visible by the EM in patients tissues, and sorry there hasn’t been a single wild animal thats died of SIV.

You’re just left with correlation to prove your bogus microbes! And a very weak one at that since most people who have these viruses have no clinical disease at all, but you can always extend the window period from 10 months to 10 years to get around that, like you guys did with HIV, or extend the window period to 30 years as in the case with hepatitis C!

I love the phony corrleation you guys have with these microbes. Kaposis Sarcoma with hiv antibody is AIDS, Kaposis Sarcoma w/o hiv antibody is Kaposis sarcoma! What a barrel of laughs!


I note all the ad hominem attacks, and no one denying that the HIV/ Hepatitis C hypothesis is pretty much based solely on correlation! 

For people claiming to be “skeptical” you people are sure filled with fallacies and illogic. Correlation doesn’t prove causation with Autism and Cell phones, but it does with HIV and Hepatitic C!


Ok, take the Hannah Poling case, where according to her parents she was fine until she developed Autism when recieving 9 vaccines at once, after a investigation by the Federal government they conceded that vaccines played a role, this is a correlation.

Take the many other cases where Moms and Doctors noticed their kids getting autistic right after the shots, this is correlation.

Now read the NIH facts sheet on HIV, they talk about three anecdotal cases of people developing AIDS years after being infected. This was mentioned by these facts sheets as finally proving Koch’s postulates for HIV.

“Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory”
NIH fact sheet

“Difficult, but not impossible. For while we cannot deliberately infect anyone with HIV merely to satisfy Koch’s postulates and Duesberg’s curiosity, we can examine the evidence that has been gathered on healthcare workers who were accidentally infected with HIV in the course of their professional work. Take, for example, the cases of three laboratory technicians who were inadvertently exposed to the HTLV-IIIb strain of HIV-1 while working with that strain in their laboratories (35). All three of these technicians developed antibodies to HIV, and within five years all three showed marked CD4 lymphocyte depletion. Two had their CD4 counts fall to less than 200 cells/mm3, and one of those developed PCP.”
Stephen O’brien

Now why do you people dismiss anecdotal correlations with Autism and embrace them for HIV?

Oh nice try Ttrl, there is no biological evidence for HIV, there has never been one Electron microscopic picture of HIV from a patients gut, blood etc. Infact even mainstream HIV researchers claim you can barely find this microbe!

“All that has changed. As Warner C. Greene, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, explained in the September 1993 Scientific American, researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory because HIV does not infect enough cells: “Even in patients in the late stages of HIV infection with very low blood T4 cell counts, the proportion of those cells that are producing HIV is tiny-about one in 40. In the early stages of chronic infection, fewer than one in 10,000 T4 cells in blood are doing so. If the virus were killing the cells just by directly infecting them, it would almost certainly have to infect a much larger fraction at any one time.”

What Causes AIDS? an Open Question Reason Magazine. Mullis et al.

Now some could argue there is a correlation between the increase in Autism and the increase in thimerosal intake, others could say its just a coincidence, or some other confounding factors (increased autism awareness) played a role. Of course you could say these same types of confounding factors skew the correlation in HIV reasearch.(AZT, severe drug abuse, mycoplasmas etc)

And remember, all you basically have is Correlation! Sorry if you can only see your microbe with PCR, a technology meant to find a needle in a haystack and multiply it, and not with the EM, can rarely induce disease in a labrarory animal, it’s probably not that clinically relevant!

Now, that is true germ denialism that you couldn’t make up even if you banged your head against the wall fifty times a day, untile your head forms a callous and you lose the function of your frontal lobes… Or maybe you could. Now, there is two things you could do here. You could learn not to make stupid arguments from him, or laugh at him. I will just laugh at him, and reinforce my smug superiority. ^_^ Oh, and notice how he is throwing ad hominem like an idiot, he wouldn’t know ad hominem even if it was shown right in front of him. You see, insults in itself is not ad hominem, and in fact, it is valid if there is reasonable evidence that the insults might be true, like these comments. It is an ad hominem IF you say someone is wrong because of something about the person, not the argument. In this case, he is wrong because of huge scientific evidences that viruses exists. I suggest and go read the thread, it is very entertaining. By the way, he calls himself “cooler,” he ain’t cool…

2 Responses to Comments of the Germ Denier

  1. Cinderella says:

    I’m impressed by your writing. Are you a professional or just very kndgaeowelble?


    Comments of the Germ Denier | IBY’s Island Universe

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: