Thank you, Rider. I really wish more people took the time to understand logical fallacies and how they’re used to prop up germ “theory” and virology. Once you see that the foundation rests on unsound reasoning, the fraud becomes obvious. It's not science—it’s storytelling dressed in lab coats.
Thanks for the great detail. Bechamp was right, Pasteur the quack wrong. Kock was another quack. An entire industry built on lies and the quack Jenner's business model - a chemical cocktail recipe for 'disease' largely caused by filth and other factors but attributed to fake flying dead material. Jenner et al made £3 mn in today's money from the UK government. A criminal-industry was born.
According to the terrain perspective, antibiotics “work” primarily by suppressing symptoms rather than addressing root causes. From this view, symptoms are evidence that the body has entered a healing phase—actively working to restore balance and eliminate waste. Bacteria play a natural role in this process by helping to break down and remove dead or damaged tissue. When antibiotics are introduced, they disrupt this cleansing activity, effectively halting the healing response. While symptoms may lessen or disappear temporarily (though not always), the underlying imbalance remains unresolved. This suppression can set the stage for more serious or chronic illness later, when the body again attempts to expel accumulated waste.
What is the mechanism by which antibiotics suppress symptoms? Has this been postulated?
I’m interested because even though I’m a healthy athletic non smoker non drinker I got pneumonia out of the blue and was quite sick but after starting antibiotics I got much better.
If you got a serious and potentially life threatening condition for which antibiotics are traditionally administered (sepsis, meningitis, deep wound infections, etc) would you refuse to use them?
From a terrain perspective, antibiotics “work” by disrupting the body’s natural healing processes. They halt bacterial activity involved in tissue breakdown and detoxification (such as the clearing of damaged tissue through phagocytosis or fermentation). They act as anti-inflammatory agents, indirectly suppressing healing—many antibiotics, like tetracyclines and macrolides, are known to have direct anti-inflammatory effects. They also suppress the microbiome, which may temporarily reduce systemic signaling and host response.
From this view, antibiotics don’t “cure” disease—they interfere with the body’s response, creating a perception of improvement. The question isn’t whether antibiotics work, but how they work—and at what cost. One might accept antibiotics as a last resort, with full awareness that they are a short-term intervention. They don’t address the root cause (such as toxic exposure, emotional stress, or a suppressed host response), and they disrupt the microbiome and suppress symptoms, possibly deferring deeper healing.
If I had sepsis and was on the verge of death, I would consider using antibiotics temporarily as a last resort—with the goal of surviving the storm, not curing the cause. But if I had time, support, and signs that my body was managing, I’d lean toward natural, supportive healing.
Not to keep yammering on, but what about the newest generation of anti-HIV medications? HIV+ people just don’t die like they used to. Their viral load drops to undetectable, T cell counts remain stable, they don’t get bizarre opportunistic infections, etc. HIV has been changed into nothing more than a chronic, manageable disease, and a relatively mild one at that. Surely you’d concede that antivirals have been a game changer for HIV?
They simply swapped out the highly toxic AZT, which killed quickly, for less immediately toxic ARTs that kill more slowly. As for CD4 counts and “viral load,” those are indirect markers—not definitive indicators of disease. This article explains more:
I was reminded that Koch's Postulates have always disquietened me. I realise now that it is because each contains either a logical fallacy (e.g. presupposition) or omits other considerations (e.g. something could cause more than one condition, 'purity' implies it is absolute, etc). I think all of them can be taken down for a variety of reasons. I am left with the question: why are these 'postulates' better than a scientific hypothesis? They're not; this may have been their aim: i.e. to avoid faslifiability.
This leaves me with a question on 'Germ Theory' overall. Surely an hypothesis can only apply to one suspected germ and not all of them? It is not a case of 'all or nothing' (i.e all germs or no germs all). Even then, for one germ, an hypothesis probably only in one regard, because of the need for a single independent variable (e.g. introduction through a tick bite)? Falsifiability also requires the thorough investigation of all other possible causes - i.e an hypothesis must be falsifiable and rejected for all the things it does not cover, leaving perhaps the thing(s) it does; this is the proper nature of scientific enquiry, and certainly not taking every 'measure' (i.e. including semantics) to 'prove' it - but such is human nature.
I would argue that Koch’s Postulates are both logical and in line with the scientific method, as they establish a clear and testable framework for proving causality in disease.
Postulate 1: Association of the Microbe with Disease
If the suspected "pathogen" is found both in sick individuals and not in healthy ones, the hypothesis that it causes the disease is falsified. This directly aligns with the scientific method by establishing a testable prediction: the microbe should be present in the disease but absent in healthy individuals. If this isn’t the case, the hypothesis is disproven, emphasizing falsifiability, a core principle of good scientific inquiry.
Postulate 2: Isolation of the "Pathogen"
Without a pure culture of the microbe, there is no valid independent variable free of confounding factors to test. This is essential for controlling variables in scientific experiments. Purity ensures that the suspected "pathogen" is isolated and not influenced by other microbes, guaranteeing that any observed effects are due to the "pathogen" in question.
Postulate 3: Reproduction of Disease
The disease must be reproduced by introducing the isolated "pathogen" into a healthy organism. If this doesn't occur, the hypothesis is falsified. This is the experimental phase of the scientific method—testing whether a cause (the microbe) can reliably produce an effect (the disease). If the disease can’t be reproduced, the "pathogen" is not the cause, which demonstrates the importance of reproducibility and controlled testing.
Postulate 4: Reisolation
Finally, the "pathogen" must be reisolated from the newly "infected" host, ensuring that the same organism is responsible for both the disease and its transmission. This serves as a confirmation step, ensuring that the relationship between microbe and disease is direct and consistent, further supporting the concept of reproducibility and control in scientific experimentation.
Scientific Method Alignment:
Testable Hypothesis: Koch’s Postulates allow for a testable hypothesis by predicting specific outcomes (e.g., the presence of the microbe in diseased individuals, the ability to recreate the disease).
Prediction and Testing: The postulates guide researchers in predicting that specific conditions will result in disease, and provide a means of testing whether those predictions hold true.
Falsifiability: If the postulates aren’t met, the hypothesis is falsified, ensuring that conclusions are based on observable and verifiable evidence, not assumptions.
Reproducibility: The postulates emphasize the reproducibility of results, ensuring that experiments can be repeated with similar outcomes across different conditions and researchers.
In summary, while I appreciate your points about flexibility, I would argue that Koch’s Postulates are logical, scientifically rigorous, and well-aligned with the scientific method. They set a standard for testing hypotheses that ensures clear, testable, and reproducible results.
Hi Mike, I am picking up this thread here on the logical aspect. My overnight thoughts were that KPs may be a logical (framing) trap, but conceptually more like a logical funnel, and a limitless one (or treated as one by most): no matter how much is 'poured in', 'what comes out' can only be framed as 'microbe in relation to disease' - real or imaginary.
I am not saying Koch necessarily designed them this way. In part they reflect an absolutely ancient instinctive conviction: fear that if someone has a (certain) disease it must be caused by a 'something' and that 'must' be transmissible to another person - i.e. 'contagion' and 'infectivity'. In the absence of absolute proof, this is not that far away from 'witches' casting 'curses' upon people, and 'witch doctors' providing 'cures' to them, but it's been given the modern white lab coat of respectability, which most people today accept. Without expanding the point, fear is the ultimate marketing tool, the control it gives (of the narrative model) generates maximum profit.
The option you mentioned in your most recent reply - of rejecting the hypothesis (that 'microbe X causes disease Y') seems to be ignored, presumably because it is inconvenient to certain interests. The scientific thing to do would be to explore alternative causes for the specific disease - i.e. alternate non (or other) microbial hypotheses, until such is properly understood.
The idea of Koch’s Postulates acting as a logical funnel is spot-on. Originally, they were meant to test one possible hypothesis: that a microbe is the cause of a specific disease. They were never meant to be a limit on investigating other potential causes — environmental, toxicological, physiological, or otherwise. Yet over time, that's exactly how they’ve been used. Rather than serving as a method to rule in or out microbial causation, the postulates became a kind of self-reinforcing trap: if disease is observed, then a microbe must be responsible — and if one isn’t found initially, researchers simply tweak the inputs (passaging, animal models, cell lines, genetic amplification, etc.) until the output conforms to the expected narrative. The result is a distortion of the scientific process, where the framework itself precludes serious exploration of non-microbial explanations.
You’re right that this isn’t necessarily what Koch intended, but it reflects a deep cultural reflex: the need to externalize blame for illness and to believe in invisible, transferable agents. As you said, that’s not far from the curse/witchcraft model — it's just dressed in lab coats and PCR tests now.
And yes, fear has always been the most effective mechanism of control. When disease becomes an invisible threat tied to other people, it breaks down trust and primes the public for intervention — medical, political, or technological. That narrative is far too valuable for certain institutions to give up, even when the scientific method would demand rejection of the original hypothesis.
I fully agree: real science would discard failed hypotheses and explore alternative causal models. Instead, the germ hypothesis was shielded and expanded — especially with the invention of "viruses" that could not be seen, isolated, or tested in the same way. That move alone demonstrates how the framework was adjusted to preserve the narrative, not to follow the evidence.
Hi Mike, thank you. I think our civilised scientific debate has helped me tease out what has always troubled me about Koch's Postulates. Whilst I think individual falsifiable hypotheses should always be accepted for empirical experimentation, as a construct, I think KPs should be rejected, for the reasons agreed.
Thanks Wigo, and I really appreciate your openness and clarity throughout this discussion. I agree — the ability to test falsifiable hypotheses is essential to science. The problem with Koch’s Postulates isn’t the idea of testing causal claims; it’s that the postulates have often been treated as a universal filter rather than a specific methodological tool, and that treatment has sometimes narrowed inquiry rather than expanded it.
That said, there’s no need to abandon Koch’s Postulates when evaluating claims of microbial causation. They are logically sound and fully aligned with the scientific method — a clear, testable framework for determining whether a specific microbe causes a specific disease. Ironically, the best reason to move on from them isn’t that they failed, but that they succeeded: they repeatedly falsified the hypothesis that microbes cause disease. In the few cases where the postulates have been rigorously applied, they’ve shown that the presence of microbes does not consistently correlate with disease — and that introducing them into healthy hosts, naturally, does not reliably cause illness. This suggests that the germ hypothesis, when actually put to the test, has not held up.
Instead of bending or bypassing the postulates to preserve a collapsing paradigm, science should accept the result and redirect its efforts — applying the same empirical rigor to investigating other potential causes, whether environmental, nutritional, toxicological, or physiological. That is, and should remain, the essence of scientific progress: not protecting old ideas, but following the evidence wherever it leads.
Hi Mike, KPs still bug me, I find. Thus far, we have given Koch the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent. We have established that the KPs represent a logical funnel trap, and that they frame the discussion on causation only within a 'microbe causes disease' paradigm, real or imaginary. Koch received a substantial amount of money and prestige (as did Pasteur) for his efforts. Could his status as the 'premier bacteriologist' and the interests of his funders (who were they?) have led him to frame the KPs in terms where microbes only could be the cause of disease (possibly where causes were unknown)? This would (did) give him near total control of the narrative; even his 'workarounds' had to be sanctioned by him.
Looking at KPs: 1) is fairly innocuous, and would be 'generally accepted' (a good way to start off any effort to convince) 2)-4) however, are more 'technical' and come under his control - 'variables' such as 'isolation', 'purity', 'culture', 'introduction', and 're-isolation'. What seems to be missing to me is the issue of transmissibility: from a diseased to a healthy person in a natural way. Given that we are talking about diseases said to be contagious/infectious this is a gaping omission. Could it be that by taking such out of natural circumstances to one where artificial criteria could be completely controlled and framed was the intent of KPs?
This 'model' was not without its detractors, however, and the microorganisms concerned could be seen. Could this have led to the development of a 'refined' (marketing) model where the microbes became 'invisible'?
Hi Mike, thank you for taking so much time in your response. With due deference to Koch, I am not sure that 4 postulates (hypotheses?) or more could cover all possibilities of organisms causing disease, why a set of 'universal postulates/hypotheses' is needed or better than individual hypotheses, and why such would be limited to microscopic ones. To try take the postulates in turn:
1) If the microorganism is found in healthy subjects, does that absolutely disprove the hypothesis? It may or it may not: e.g 'infective doses', 'disease carriers', 'asymptomatic' (i.e. healthy), etc..
2) Taking the definition of a scientific hypothesis: 'a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world', the problem immediately here is it speaks of artificial/unnatural conditions - of 'isolation' and 'purity' with the implication that these are absolutes in the normal senses of the words, but we know this not to be the case. There is also the assumption that an organism must be capable of being grown in culture. If it cannot be grown in culture, does that disprove the hypothesis? no.
3) The problem with this is that we know what may be introduced, often in very unnatural ways, is not just the 'cultured microorganism'; it does also not exclude the possibility that the 'culture' may include other things which are 'selected' to produce the same symptoms. Overall, this postulate does not occur in the natural world.
4) This is essentially a repeat of 2) above, with the same issues, and not being a natural phenomenon. There are also the same issues of 3) not least in ways of producing symptoms.
One could, I think, come up with more detailed objections to the postulates, but having gone through, I think my overall concern is one that artificially created conditions cannot/should not be used in the testing of an hypothesis concerning a natural scientific phenomenon. Each suspected disease-causing organism should have hypotheses tested under natural conditions, and as the object is to find the cause, all possible options should be thoroughly investigated, including whether the condition(s) are caused by an 'external' agent or not.
I agree there's definitely a kind of salesmanship at play in how the postulates were presented. That said, I lean more toward the view that they were originally proposed in good faith—as an attempt to formalize causation standards in a new area—but were later abandoned precisely because they were too falsifiable. The real trick, in my view, was not the postulates themselves, but in how the field evolved to sidestep or “reinterpret” them once germs couldn’t fulfill them. The refusal to ever accept a “no cause found” outcome is where the confidence game became embedded. That, plus the silence around the transmissibility assumption, has kept the illusion alive.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Wigo. Regarding your points about each postulate:
1. Presence of microorganisms in healthy hosts
You're right—this doesn’t automatically falsify a disease hypothesis, but it does falsify the idea that mere presence is sufficient to cause disease. That’s crucial, because germ “theory” originally rested on deterministic causation. Concepts like “infective dose,” “asymptomatic carriers,” and “incubation periods” were introduced later as post hoc adjustments to preserve the hypothesis after it ran into conflicting evidence. These may be fine as testable sub-hypotheses—but they must be independently demonstrated, not assumed.
2. Isolation and purity as “unnatural”
Controlled experimentation requires isolating variables—that’s foundational to science. The point of isolation is to identify a valid independent variable before testing causation. If the suspected cause can’t be isolated, how can it be tested at all, let alone claimed as causal? This isn’t nitpicking—it’s what separates scientific inquiry from speculation.
3. Introducing the cultured agent into a new host
You’re absolutely right: if the agent introduced isn’t pure—or is introduced in ways that themselves cause harm (e.g., injection into the brain)—then the experiment is invalid. That’s precisely what virology often does. Koch’s third postulate insists the suspected cause must alone reproduce the disease. If other variables are involved, or the method is unnatural, the results can't be trusted as evidence of causation.
4. Re-isolation from the newly diseased host
Yes, this overlaps with postulate 2—but it serves an important role. It confirms that the same agent is recovered from the newly diseased host. Without this step, there’s no way to rule out alternative explanations. Modern studies often skip or redefine this step entirely, which should be a red flag.
Ultimately, Koch’s postulates aren’t dogma—they’re a logical, falsifiable framework rooted in the scientific method. If we discard them entirely, what remains to separate cause from coincidence?
Agreed on your point 2, certainly in as far as knowing exactly what one is dealing with and it being one independent variable - if that's what we mean by 'isolation & purity'. As you note in another answer, that's often not the case. I still think that experimenting under natural conditions rather than creating artificial ones, and varying single variables is the scientific method.
Overnight reflection on Koch's Postulates - in part they are a semantic 'magic trick': the implication is that somehow they are 'above' hypotheses (so not subject to the same rigour), in reality they are not proper scientific hypotheses.
While I see where you're coming from, I’d push back a bit. Koch’s Postulates aren’t a “magic trick,” nor are they positioned above scientific hypotheses—they are a framework for testing them. Each postulate represents a logical, falsifiable condition for establishing causation:
1. Consistent presence (association),
2. Isolation (identifying the independent variable),
3. Reproduction of disease (experimental confirmation),
4. Re-isolation (confirmation and exclusion of coincidence).
They don’t bypass the scientific method—they embody it. Abandoning them doesn’t make causation easier to prove; it just makes it easier to assume.
I see what you're saying, it looks logical. One problem is that neither Koch, nor indeed Pasteur kept to single independent variables. On 1) above, association would not prove an hypothesis. On 2-4) I can see what you are saying, but are these not somewhat theoretical, in that are they achievable for a microorganism? My point on the wording (semantics) is why call them 'postulates' rather than hypotheses? There's an element their claiming they cover all situations, but I don't think they do. If the aim is to find the cause of a disease then I am not at all convinced that the 4 do that, and that many other possible hypotheses might be needed to find the cause (if indeed it is 'external')
I appreciate that—you raise valid concerns. You're absolutely right that neither Koch nor Pasteur consistently followed the very standards they proposed. And yes, association alone doesn’t prove causation—that’s why Koch didn’t stop there. The postulates go beyond mere association by requiring experimental verification through isolation, reproduction, and re-isolation.
Calling them postulates rather than hypotheses may seem semantic, but I’d argue it's to emphasize their role as criteria for evaluating a hypothesis. They don't claim to cover every situation—but they do reflect the structure of a well-formed, testable causal hypothesis. If a proposed "pathogen" doesn't meet these conditions, then the burden is on researchers to justify why and how they've modified or abandoned them.
I agree many causes of illness may not be external—but that's exactly what the postulates are designed to test. They allow the hypothesis of an external cause to be falsified. Without such a framework, we’re left trying to “prove” causation through inference, correlation, or indirect evidence—methods that invite error and assumption.
So, do you believe that the particle considered a virus exists, while scientists themselves have never proven its existence in any way? I think Koch's postulates are fundamental to a scientist's understanding. If the postulates are considered unscientific, then why are scientists' claims about viruses considered scientific?
In response, I think I would say that a disease causing organism must be known to exist (proved beyond any doubt) for any further hypothesis to be applied to it, otherwise one is dealing with imaginary things.
It's not difficult to judge the "germ theory" when we consider "the cure." It is worth noting that in the entire post, the entire discussion, the word cure appears only once.
A cure addresses the "present cause" of an illness. A preventative addresses potential causes - future causes often those identified as "past causes."
Firstly, we need to recognize that most cases of disease as recognized and documented using the World Health Organization's ICD - International Classification of Diseases - are not caused by germs. Arthritis, ADHD, autism, back pain, bloat, cancer, Crohn's, depression, diabetes, epilepsy, gout, hypertension, immune disorders, jaundice, kleptomania, liver disease, mental disorders, nutritional disorders, orange man syndrome, Parkinson's, ragweed allergy, scurvy, toxic exposure to..., are clearly not caused by germs.
What is cause by a germ? How can we tell? If the specific case is cured by addressing the germ cause - the germ was the cause. If it is cured by an action that does not directly address the germ cause - no germ was the cause. Many diseases labelled "infectious" are not cured with anti-germ medicines or medical treatments. Childhood ear infections are not cured by antibiotics. Neither are cases of the common cold - although most cases are quickly cured without medicines. Even an "infectious disease" like gingivitis can be cured by healthy nutrition and oral habits - but not by attacking the "germ cause."
There are some cases of infectious diseases cured by addressing the infectious agent cause. In many cases, these are secondary diseases. Penicillin's primary success was treating infectious caused by wounds of war. The past cause was the war. The present cause was the infection. "Modern medicine" is simply not interested in most cases of cured - because most cases of cured are not caused by a parent medicine.
Could you explain what is meant by transmission without a causative agent? I'm confused about how gonorrhea can occur after having sex with multiple women. That's what's confusing me.
There is no proven transmission. But you will be exposed to secretions of women. If you react to them negatively and they are transferred during physical contact, then it is your transmission of them.
Also during arousal you can be stressed out, pressure in body may be increased, you might consume alcohol, try to overdo s. activity (lot of friction, squeezing, pushing), filled with toxic chemicals. Thus toxins, damage and chemical reactions may occur in skin areas.
That's right, it could be... The proof is that when I drink too much alcohol, my gums swell... It happened to one of my teeth, which had a problem before... then when I drink too much alcohol my gums swelled... it could be urethral irritation or something like that caused by alcohol and female secretions that make us allergic.
So gonorrhea is caused by a kind of allergy to the fluids in some women, or it could be that the fluids in women in certain circumstances, such as when they have vaginal discharge, are caused by not maintaining cleanliness in the vaginal area, which ultimately reacts with our penis, causing irritation in the urethra.
You verify what causes a disease through logical observations or experiments on independent variable. Infectious diseases are claimed to be caused by germs. But no one has proven any alleged germ so far.
Mike, thank you for another brilliant article proving and elaborating the fallacies of germ "theory".
The blatent disregard among germ enthusiasts of logical contradictions in their belief-system ought to be astonishing. But it's commonplace.
No wonder medical licensing had to be imposed to guarantee by force acceptance of the incredible as scientific.
Thank you, Rider. I really wish more people took the time to understand logical fallacies and how they’re used to prop up germ “theory” and virology. Once you see that the foundation rests on unsound reasoning, the fraud becomes obvious. It's not science—it’s storytelling dressed in lab coats.
Logic precedes scientific experimentation . Without the former, the latter is a fool's errand.
Thanks for the great detail. Bechamp was right, Pasteur the quack wrong. Kock was another quack. An entire industry built on lies and the quack Jenner's business model - a chemical cocktail recipe for 'disease' largely caused by filth and other factors but attributed to fake flying dead material. Jenner et al made £3 mn in today's money from the UK government. A criminal-industry was born.
How scientific theory gets turned into scientific theater... for profit. Great article
Great research.
Why do antibiotics work?
According to the terrain perspective, antibiotics “work” primarily by suppressing symptoms rather than addressing root causes. From this view, symptoms are evidence that the body has entered a healing phase—actively working to restore balance and eliminate waste. Bacteria play a natural role in this process by helping to break down and remove dead or damaged tissue. When antibiotics are introduced, they disrupt this cleansing activity, effectively halting the healing response. While symptoms may lessen or disappear temporarily (though not always), the underlying imbalance remains unresolved. This suppression can set the stage for more serious or chronic illness later, when the body again attempts to expel accumulated waste.
Ok thanks.
What is the mechanism by which antibiotics suppress symptoms? Has this been postulated?
I’m interested because even though I’m a healthy athletic non smoker non drinker I got pneumonia out of the blue and was quite sick but after starting antibiotics I got much better.
If you got a serious and potentially life threatening condition for which antibiotics are traditionally administered (sepsis, meningitis, deep wound infections, etc) would you refuse to use them?
From a terrain perspective, antibiotics “work” by disrupting the body’s natural healing processes. They halt bacterial activity involved in tissue breakdown and detoxification (such as the clearing of damaged tissue through phagocytosis or fermentation). They act as anti-inflammatory agents, indirectly suppressing healing—many antibiotics, like tetracyclines and macrolides, are known to have direct anti-inflammatory effects. They also suppress the microbiome, which may temporarily reduce systemic signaling and host response.
From this view, antibiotics don’t “cure” disease—they interfere with the body’s response, creating a perception of improvement. The question isn’t whether antibiotics work, but how they work—and at what cost. One might accept antibiotics as a last resort, with full awareness that they are a short-term intervention. They don’t address the root cause (such as toxic exposure, emotional stress, or a suppressed host response), and they disrupt the microbiome and suppress symptoms, possibly deferring deeper healing.
If I had sepsis and was on the verge of death, I would consider using antibiotics temporarily as a last resort—with the goal of surviving the storm, not curing the cause. But if I had time, support, and signs that my body was managing, I’d lean toward natural, supportive healing.
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
You are very welcome, Tony. 🙂
Not to keep yammering on, but what about the newest generation of anti-HIV medications? HIV+ people just don’t die like they used to. Their viral load drops to undetectable, T cell counts remain stable, they don’t get bizarre opportunistic infections, etc. HIV has been changed into nothing more than a chronic, manageable disease, and a relatively mild one at that. Surely you’d concede that antivirals have been a game changer for HIV?
They simply swapped out the highly toxic AZT, which killed quickly, for less immediately toxic ARTs that kill more slowly. As for CD4 counts and “viral load,” those are indirect markers—not definitive indicators of disease. This article explains more:
https://viroliegy.com/2024/12/27/how-hiv-fails-kochs-postulates/
I was reminded that Koch's Postulates have always disquietened me. I realise now that it is because each contains either a logical fallacy (e.g. presupposition) or omits other considerations (e.g. something could cause more than one condition, 'purity' implies it is absolute, etc). I think all of them can be taken down for a variety of reasons. I am left with the question: why are these 'postulates' better than a scientific hypothesis? They're not; this may have been their aim: i.e. to avoid faslifiability.
This leaves me with a question on 'Germ Theory' overall. Surely an hypothesis can only apply to one suspected germ and not all of them? It is not a case of 'all or nothing' (i.e all germs or no germs all). Even then, for one germ, an hypothesis probably only in one regard, because of the need for a single independent variable (e.g. introduction through a tick bite)? Falsifiability also requires the thorough investigation of all other possible causes - i.e an hypothesis must be falsifiable and rejected for all the things it does not cover, leaving perhaps the thing(s) it does; this is the proper nature of scientific enquiry, and certainly not taking every 'measure' (i.e. including semantics) to 'prove' it - but such is human nature.
Hi Wigo,
I would argue that Koch’s Postulates are both logical and in line with the scientific method, as they establish a clear and testable framework for proving causality in disease.
Postulate 1: Association of the Microbe with Disease
If the suspected "pathogen" is found both in sick individuals and not in healthy ones, the hypothesis that it causes the disease is falsified. This directly aligns with the scientific method by establishing a testable prediction: the microbe should be present in the disease but absent in healthy individuals. If this isn’t the case, the hypothesis is disproven, emphasizing falsifiability, a core principle of good scientific inquiry.
Postulate 2: Isolation of the "Pathogen"
Without a pure culture of the microbe, there is no valid independent variable free of confounding factors to test. This is essential for controlling variables in scientific experiments. Purity ensures that the suspected "pathogen" is isolated and not influenced by other microbes, guaranteeing that any observed effects are due to the "pathogen" in question.
Postulate 3: Reproduction of Disease
The disease must be reproduced by introducing the isolated "pathogen" into a healthy organism. If this doesn't occur, the hypothesis is falsified. This is the experimental phase of the scientific method—testing whether a cause (the microbe) can reliably produce an effect (the disease). If the disease can’t be reproduced, the "pathogen" is not the cause, which demonstrates the importance of reproducibility and controlled testing.
Postulate 4: Reisolation
Finally, the "pathogen" must be reisolated from the newly "infected" host, ensuring that the same organism is responsible for both the disease and its transmission. This serves as a confirmation step, ensuring that the relationship between microbe and disease is direct and consistent, further supporting the concept of reproducibility and control in scientific experimentation.
Scientific Method Alignment:
Testable Hypothesis: Koch’s Postulates allow for a testable hypothesis by predicting specific outcomes (e.g., the presence of the microbe in diseased individuals, the ability to recreate the disease).
Prediction and Testing: The postulates guide researchers in predicting that specific conditions will result in disease, and provide a means of testing whether those predictions hold true.
Falsifiability: If the postulates aren’t met, the hypothesis is falsified, ensuring that conclusions are based on observable and verifiable evidence, not assumptions.
Reproducibility: The postulates emphasize the reproducibility of results, ensuring that experiments can be repeated with similar outcomes across different conditions and researchers.
In summary, while I appreciate your points about flexibility, I would argue that Koch’s Postulates are logical, scientifically rigorous, and well-aligned with the scientific method. They set a standard for testing hypotheses that ensures clear, testable, and reproducible results.
Hi Mike, I am picking up this thread here on the logical aspect. My overnight thoughts were that KPs may be a logical (framing) trap, but conceptually more like a logical funnel, and a limitless one (or treated as one by most): no matter how much is 'poured in', 'what comes out' can only be framed as 'microbe in relation to disease' - real or imaginary.
I am not saying Koch necessarily designed them this way. In part they reflect an absolutely ancient instinctive conviction: fear that if someone has a (certain) disease it must be caused by a 'something' and that 'must' be transmissible to another person - i.e. 'contagion' and 'infectivity'. In the absence of absolute proof, this is not that far away from 'witches' casting 'curses' upon people, and 'witch doctors' providing 'cures' to them, but it's been given the modern white lab coat of respectability, which most people today accept. Without expanding the point, fear is the ultimate marketing tool, the control it gives (of the narrative model) generates maximum profit.
The option you mentioned in your most recent reply - of rejecting the hypothesis (that 'microbe X causes disease Y') seems to be ignored, presumably because it is inconvenient to certain interests. The scientific thing to do would be to explore alternative causes for the specific disease - i.e. alternate non (or other) microbial hypotheses, until such is properly understood.
Hi Wigo,
The idea of Koch’s Postulates acting as a logical funnel is spot-on. Originally, they were meant to test one possible hypothesis: that a microbe is the cause of a specific disease. They were never meant to be a limit on investigating other potential causes — environmental, toxicological, physiological, or otherwise. Yet over time, that's exactly how they’ve been used. Rather than serving as a method to rule in or out microbial causation, the postulates became a kind of self-reinforcing trap: if disease is observed, then a microbe must be responsible — and if one isn’t found initially, researchers simply tweak the inputs (passaging, animal models, cell lines, genetic amplification, etc.) until the output conforms to the expected narrative. The result is a distortion of the scientific process, where the framework itself precludes serious exploration of non-microbial explanations.
You’re right that this isn’t necessarily what Koch intended, but it reflects a deep cultural reflex: the need to externalize blame for illness and to believe in invisible, transferable agents. As you said, that’s not far from the curse/witchcraft model — it's just dressed in lab coats and PCR tests now.
And yes, fear has always been the most effective mechanism of control. When disease becomes an invisible threat tied to other people, it breaks down trust and primes the public for intervention — medical, political, or technological. That narrative is far too valuable for certain institutions to give up, even when the scientific method would demand rejection of the original hypothesis.
I fully agree: real science would discard failed hypotheses and explore alternative causal models. Instead, the germ hypothesis was shielded and expanded — especially with the invention of "viruses" that could not be seen, isolated, or tested in the same way. That move alone demonstrates how the framework was adjusted to preserve the narrative, not to follow the evidence.
Hi Mike, thank you. I think our civilised scientific debate has helped me tease out what has always troubled me about Koch's Postulates. Whilst I think individual falsifiable hypotheses should always be accepted for empirical experimentation, as a construct, I think KPs should be rejected, for the reasons agreed.
Thanks Wigo, and I really appreciate your openness and clarity throughout this discussion. I agree — the ability to test falsifiable hypotheses is essential to science. The problem with Koch’s Postulates isn’t the idea of testing causal claims; it’s that the postulates have often been treated as a universal filter rather than a specific methodological tool, and that treatment has sometimes narrowed inquiry rather than expanded it.
That said, there’s no need to abandon Koch’s Postulates when evaluating claims of microbial causation. They are logically sound and fully aligned with the scientific method — a clear, testable framework for determining whether a specific microbe causes a specific disease. Ironically, the best reason to move on from them isn’t that they failed, but that they succeeded: they repeatedly falsified the hypothesis that microbes cause disease. In the few cases where the postulates have been rigorously applied, they’ve shown that the presence of microbes does not consistently correlate with disease — and that introducing them into healthy hosts, naturally, does not reliably cause illness. This suggests that the germ hypothesis, when actually put to the test, has not held up.
Instead of bending or bypassing the postulates to preserve a collapsing paradigm, science should accept the result and redirect its efforts — applying the same empirical rigor to investigating other potential causes, whether environmental, nutritional, toxicological, or physiological. That is, and should remain, the essence of scientific progress: not protecting old ideas, but following the evidence wherever it leads.
Hi Mike, KPs still bug me, I find. Thus far, we have given Koch the benefit of the doubt in terms of intent. We have established that the KPs represent a logical funnel trap, and that they frame the discussion on causation only within a 'microbe causes disease' paradigm, real or imaginary. Koch received a substantial amount of money and prestige (as did Pasteur) for his efforts. Could his status as the 'premier bacteriologist' and the interests of his funders (who were they?) have led him to frame the KPs in terms where microbes only could be the cause of disease (possibly where causes were unknown)? This would (did) give him near total control of the narrative; even his 'workarounds' had to be sanctioned by him.
Looking at KPs: 1) is fairly innocuous, and would be 'generally accepted' (a good way to start off any effort to convince) 2)-4) however, are more 'technical' and come under his control - 'variables' such as 'isolation', 'purity', 'culture', 'introduction', and 're-isolation'. What seems to be missing to me is the issue of transmissibility: from a diseased to a healthy person in a natural way. Given that we are talking about diseases said to be contagious/infectious this is a gaping omission. Could it be that by taking such out of natural circumstances to one where artificial criteria could be completely controlled and framed was the intent of KPs?
This 'model' was not without its detractors, however, and the microorganisms concerned could be seen. Could this have led to the development of a 'refined' (marketing) model where the microbes became 'invisible'?
Hi Mike, thank you for taking so much time in your response. With due deference to Koch, I am not sure that 4 postulates (hypotheses?) or more could cover all possibilities of organisms causing disease, why a set of 'universal postulates/hypotheses' is needed or better than individual hypotheses, and why such would be limited to microscopic ones. To try take the postulates in turn:
1) If the microorganism is found in healthy subjects, does that absolutely disprove the hypothesis? It may or it may not: e.g 'infective doses', 'disease carriers', 'asymptomatic' (i.e. healthy), etc..
2) Taking the definition of a scientific hypothesis: 'a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world', the problem immediately here is it speaks of artificial/unnatural conditions - of 'isolation' and 'purity' with the implication that these are absolutes in the normal senses of the words, but we know this not to be the case. There is also the assumption that an organism must be capable of being grown in culture. If it cannot be grown in culture, does that disprove the hypothesis? no.
3) The problem with this is that we know what may be introduced, often in very unnatural ways, is not just the 'cultured microorganism'; it does also not exclude the possibility that the 'culture' may include other things which are 'selected' to produce the same symptoms. Overall, this postulate does not occur in the natural world.
4) This is essentially a repeat of 2) above, with the same issues, and not being a natural phenomenon. There are also the same issues of 3) not least in ways of producing symptoms.
One could, I think, come up with more detailed objections to the postulates, but having gone through, I think my overall concern is one that artificially created conditions cannot/should not be used in the testing of an hypothesis concerning a natural scientific phenomenon. Each suspected disease-causing organism should have hypotheses tested under natural conditions, and as the object is to find the cause, all possible options should be thoroughly investigated, including whether the condition(s) are caused by an 'external' agent or not.
Hi Wigo,
I agree there's definitely a kind of salesmanship at play in how the postulates were presented. That said, I lean more toward the view that they were originally proposed in good faith—as an attempt to formalize causation standards in a new area—but were later abandoned precisely because they were too falsifiable. The real trick, in my view, was not the postulates themselves, but in how the field evolved to sidestep or “reinterpret” them once germs couldn’t fulfill them. The refusal to ever accept a “no cause found” outcome is where the confidence game became embedded. That, plus the silence around the transmissibility assumption, has kept the illusion alive.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Wigo. Regarding your points about each postulate:
1. Presence of microorganisms in healthy hosts
You're right—this doesn’t automatically falsify a disease hypothesis, but it does falsify the idea that mere presence is sufficient to cause disease. That’s crucial, because germ “theory” originally rested on deterministic causation. Concepts like “infective dose,” “asymptomatic carriers,” and “incubation periods” were introduced later as post hoc adjustments to preserve the hypothesis after it ran into conflicting evidence. These may be fine as testable sub-hypotheses—but they must be independently demonstrated, not assumed.
2. Isolation and purity as “unnatural”
Controlled experimentation requires isolating variables—that’s foundational to science. The point of isolation is to identify a valid independent variable before testing causation. If the suspected cause can’t be isolated, how can it be tested at all, let alone claimed as causal? This isn’t nitpicking—it’s what separates scientific inquiry from speculation.
3. Introducing the cultured agent into a new host
You’re absolutely right: if the agent introduced isn’t pure—or is introduced in ways that themselves cause harm (e.g., injection into the brain)—then the experiment is invalid. That’s precisely what virology often does. Koch’s third postulate insists the suspected cause must alone reproduce the disease. If other variables are involved, or the method is unnatural, the results can't be trusted as evidence of causation.
4. Re-isolation from the newly diseased host
Yes, this overlaps with postulate 2—but it serves an important role. It confirms that the same agent is recovered from the newly diseased host. Without this step, there’s no way to rule out alternative explanations. Modern studies often skip or redefine this step entirely, which should be a red flag.
Ultimately, Koch’s postulates aren’t dogma—they’re a logical, falsifiable framework rooted in the scientific method. If we discard them entirely, what remains to separate cause from coincidence?
Agreed on your point 2, certainly in as far as knowing exactly what one is dealing with and it being one independent variable - if that's what we mean by 'isolation & purity'. As you note in another answer, that's often not the case. I still think that experimenting under natural conditions rather than creating artificial ones, and varying single variables is the scientific method.
Overnight reflection on Koch's Postulates - in part they are a semantic 'magic trick': the implication is that somehow they are 'above' hypotheses (so not subject to the same rigour), in reality they are not proper scientific hypotheses.
While I see where you're coming from, I’d push back a bit. Koch’s Postulates aren’t a “magic trick,” nor are they positioned above scientific hypotheses—they are a framework for testing them. Each postulate represents a logical, falsifiable condition for establishing causation:
1. Consistent presence (association),
2. Isolation (identifying the independent variable),
3. Reproduction of disease (experimental confirmation),
4. Re-isolation (confirmation and exclusion of coincidence).
They don’t bypass the scientific method—they embody it. Abandoning them doesn’t make causation easier to prove; it just makes it easier to assume.
I see what you're saying, it looks logical. One problem is that neither Koch, nor indeed Pasteur kept to single independent variables. On 1) above, association would not prove an hypothesis. On 2-4) I can see what you are saying, but are these not somewhat theoretical, in that are they achievable for a microorganism? My point on the wording (semantics) is why call them 'postulates' rather than hypotheses? There's an element their claiming they cover all situations, but I don't think they do. If the aim is to find the cause of a disease then I am not at all convinced that the 4 do that, and that many other possible hypotheses might be needed to find the cause (if indeed it is 'external')
I appreciate that—you raise valid concerns. You're absolutely right that neither Koch nor Pasteur consistently followed the very standards they proposed. And yes, association alone doesn’t prove causation—that’s why Koch didn’t stop there. The postulates go beyond mere association by requiring experimental verification through isolation, reproduction, and re-isolation.
Calling them postulates rather than hypotheses may seem semantic, but I’d argue it's to emphasize their role as criteria for evaluating a hypothesis. They don't claim to cover every situation—but they do reflect the structure of a well-formed, testable causal hypothesis. If a proposed "pathogen" doesn't meet these conditions, then the burden is on researchers to justify why and how they've modified or abandoned them.
I agree many causes of illness may not be external—but that's exactly what the postulates are designed to test. They allow the hypothesis of an external cause to be falsified. Without such a framework, we’re left trying to “prove” causation through inference, correlation, or indirect evidence—methods that invite error and assumption.
So, do you believe that the particle considered a virus exists, while scientists themselves have never proven its existence in any way? I think Koch's postulates are fundamental to a scientist's understanding. If the postulates are considered unscientific, then why are scientists' claims about viruses considered scientific?
In response, I think I would say that a disease causing organism must be known to exist (proved beyond any doubt) for any further hypothesis to be applied to it, otherwise one is dealing with imaginary things.
and imaginary things cannot be independent variables
It's not difficult to judge the "germ theory" when we consider "the cure." It is worth noting that in the entire post, the entire discussion, the word cure appears only once.
A cure addresses the "present cause" of an illness. A preventative addresses potential causes - future causes often those identified as "past causes."
Firstly, we need to recognize that most cases of disease as recognized and documented using the World Health Organization's ICD - International Classification of Diseases - are not caused by germs. Arthritis, ADHD, autism, back pain, bloat, cancer, Crohn's, depression, diabetes, epilepsy, gout, hypertension, immune disorders, jaundice, kleptomania, liver disease, mental disorders, nutritional disorders, orange man syndrome, Parkinson's, ragweed allergy, scurvy, toxic exposure to..., are clearly not caused by germs.
What is cause by a germ? How can we tell? If the specific case is cured by addressing the germ cause - the germ was the cause. If it is cured by an action that does not directly address the germ cause - no germ was the cause. Many diseases labelled "infectious" are not cured with anti-germ medicines or medical treatments. Childhood ear infections are not cured by antibiotics. Neither are cases of the common cold - although most cases are quickly cured without medicines. Even an "infectious disease" like gingivitis can be cured by healthy nutrition and oral habits - but not by attacking the "germ cause."
There are some cases of infectious diseases cured by addressing the infectious agent cause. In many cases, these are secondary diseases. Penicillin's primary success was treating infectious caused by wounds of war. The past cause was the war. The present cause was the infection. "Modern medicine" is simply not interested in most cases of cured - because most cases of cured are not caused by a parent medicine.
The cure proves the cause.
To your health, Tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure
Infectious diseases and germs are still not proven.
Could you explain what is meant by transmission without a causative agent? I'm confused about how gonorrhea can occur after having sex with multiple women. That's what's confusing me.
There is no proven transmission. But you will be exposed to secretions of women. If you react to them negatively and they are transferred during physical contact, then it is your transmission of them.
Also during arousal you can be stressed out, pressure in body may be increased, you might consume alcohol, try to overdo s. activity (lot of friction, squeezing, pushing), filled with toxic chemicals. Thus toxins, damage and chemical reactions may occur in skin areas.
That's right, it could be... The proof is that when I drink too much alcohol, my gums swell... It happened to one of my teeth, which had a problem before... then when I drink too much alcohol my gums swelled... it could be urethral irritation or something like that caused by alcohol and female secretions that make us allergic.
So gonorrhea is caused by a kind of allergy to the fluids in some women, or it could be that the fluids in women in certain circumstances, such as when they have vaginal discharge, are caused by not maintaining cleanliness in the vaginal area, which ultimately reacts with our penis, causing irritation in the urethra.
We might ask "what would constitute proof of an infectious disease?" And a secondary question, have "non-infectious diseases" been proven?
You verify what causes a disease through logical observations or experiments on independent variable. Infectious diseases are claimed to be caused by germs. But no one has proven any alleged germ so far.