The Chain of Causation

The absolutely necessary scientific evidence required.

When engaging with those who defend the germ “theory” of disease and virology, I often ask them for the necessary logical and scientific evidence needed to support their positive claim that pathogenic entities exist and that they can transmit disease from one host to another. This request focuses on evidence derived from the scientific method—a series of logical steps that must be strictly followed for the evidence to be considered valid and scientific. Additionally, I seek evidence demonstrating the fulfillment of Koch's Postulates, another set of logical criteria that must be met in order to establish that a specific microbe is the cause of a particular disease. The inherent logic of both the scientific method and Koch's Postulates work in harmony, as they complement one another perfectly. Together, they form a rigorous standard that must be met in order to prove causation.

When I request the necessary evidence that should be found within any foundational paper claiming to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic “viruses,” I outline the required evidence as such:

1. Do you have evidence of particles, presumed to be “viruses,” that have been directly purified and isolated from the fluids of a sick human or animal, without the use of culturing, and then confirmed through electron microscopy?

2. Additionally, do you have evidence that these purified and isolated particles have been proven to be pathogenic naturally through adherence to the scientific method and through the satisfaction of Koch's Postulates?

Along with this request, I provide the steps of the scientific method in case whomever I am conversing with is unfamiliar with them (which is, sadly, more common than one would believe):

1. Observe a natural phenomenon

2. Alternative hypothesis

   1. Independent variable (the presumed cause)

   2. Dependent variable (the observed effect)

   3. Control variables

3. Null hypothesis

4. Test/experiment

5. Analyze the observation/data

6. Validate/invalidate hypothesis

I also provide Koch's four logical postulates so that it is crystal clear exactly what evidence is being sought:

This requested line of evidence forms a strong, logical chain of causation that must be demonstrated by those asserting the existence of invisible, transmissible disease-causing agents. In legal terms, a chain of causation refers to a sequence of events where each event is caused by the preceding one, establishing a clear causal link between the cause and its effects. Each link in this chain binds cause and effect together. When something is shown to cause a specific effect, the chain remains unbroken, confirming the relationship between the two.

An example of this would be a situation where a company releases toxic chemical residues into a river, contaminating the water and harming animals that live in or drink from it. This contamination could cause illness and death in the wildlife. If the river water is also used for human consumption and is not properly purified, it could lead to health problems for those who drink or bathe in it. The chain of causation in this case is clear: the release of toxic chemicals led to the poisoning of the river, which in turn caused illness and death in both wildlife and humans. This causal relationship could be established through a series of tests conducted via the scientific method.

For germ “theory” and virology, a similar chain of causation must be established through a logical progression of evidence that aligns with the scientific method and satisfies Koch's Postulates. If one wants to directly prove the hypothesis that an invisible microbe within a host is causing disease, it must be demonstrated that:

1. The microbe actually exists directly in the fluids of sick hosts but not in the fluids of healthy hosts.

2. The specific microbe is identified, purified, and isolated as a valid independent variable prior to experimentation (known as time order: the cause must exist before the effect).

3. The microbe is introduced into a healthy host in the manner proposed by the hypothesis (via aerosolization, ingestion, etc.) as the mode of “infection.”

4. The specific disease associated with the microbe is reproduced following this introduction.

5. The disease is transmissible from a sick host to a healthy host in the hypothesized manner (e.g., through close contact, coughing, sneezing, etc.).

6. After transmission, the same microbe can be purified and isolated from the fluids of the newly sickened host and confirmed.

7. This process must be repeated with a large sample size with proper control experiments, and the results must be independently reproduced by other researchers.

If this logical chain of causation can be demonstrated, then the hypothesis that a microbe causes a specific disease can be accepted. However, if any of the links in this chain cannot be completed, the hypothesis must be rejected, as the broken chain falsifies the claim.

Over the past few years, no one has been able to provide the absolutely necessary chain of causation upon my request—whether for bacteria or “viruses.” Instead, I receive either indirect pseudoscientific evidence or excuses such as:

• I made up my own definition of the scientific method.

• Koch's Postulates are outdated or do not apply to “viruses.”

• I created impossible standards to reject all evidence.

• I am not qualified to determine what constitutes necessary scientific evidence.

• No virologists or microbiologists would agree with what is requested.

While these excuses are often amusing, they are, in fact, quite alarming. Those making them are essentially admitting that they do not understand the scientific method or the nature of scientific evidence. By arguing that it is impossible to provide this evidence, they are effectively conceding that the necessary and logical scientific proof supporting their position does not exist.

The final two excuses, an appeal to authority, are particularly troubling. This fallacy occurs when someone claims that an argument is valid or invalid based solely on the authority of a person or source, or when it's dismissed due to a perceived lack of authority. Here, my argument is rejected not on its merit but because it supposedly lacks an “accepted” expert source. This undermines the principle that an argument should be evaluated on evidence and reasoning, not on who makes it. While appealing to authority can sometimes lend weight to a claim, it doesn’t automatically make the claim true.

What’s especially concerning is that this fallacious reasoning suggests a misunderstanding of the necessary chain of causation, something their own field recognizes. A little research shows that I didn't invent this chain of causation—it's foundational in the scientific method and emphasized in Koch's Postulates. In fact, sources supporting their claims acknowledge this requirement. Let’s take a closer look at what some of these sources actually say.

While I usually avoid responding to appeals to authority, I do enjoy turning these logically flawed arguments back on those who rely on them. Many seem to believe that invoking “authority” provides a kind of protective shield for their pseudoscientific beliefs. However, this is rarely the case. If they choose to dismiss me as a credible voice on the necessary scientific evidence to establish causation, that’s fine. But then they must also concede that the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO) are mistaken about what constitutes necessary evidence for causation.

According to the NIH, the strict application of the scientific method ensures unbiased and well-controlled experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results. This commitment to scientific rigor involves adhering to the highest standards and best practices. In a blog post, the NIH outlined the steps of the scientific method: starting with a question based on an observation from the world, scientists develop a hypothesis—a testable prediction. They then conduct experiments to generate, collect, and analyze data, allowing them to draw conclusions and evaluate whether their results align with their hypothesis.

The NIH also acknowledges the importance of Koch's Postulates in proving causation. On the NCBI Bookshelf, a service of the National Library of Medicine and the NIH, it is noted that the rules for experimentally proving the pathogenicity of an organism are known as Koch's Postulates. The NIH lists the steps as follows:

Thus, the NIH recognizes that both the scientific method and the fulfillment of Koch's Postulates are essential for proving disease causation. This view is also supported by the CDC. In the CDC’s April 27, 2022, webinar titled Show me the data! How numbers affect COVID-19 communications, Dr. John Brooks discussed how the CDC adheres to the scientific method.

He explained that their process involves observing a phenomenon, posing a question, and generating a hypothesis to explain it. This hypothesis is then tested through experimentation to determine whether it should be accepted or rejected. While it can be easily argued upon critical analysis that the CDC's evidence is not derived from the scientific method, Dr. Brooks emphasized that this method forms the basis for the CDC’s decision-making process.

Regarding Koch's Postulates, the CDC’s own field manual published in 2018 titled Optimizing Epidemiology–Laboratory Collaborations stated that Koch’s Postulates form the basis of proof that an emerging agent is the etiological cause of a disease. Each of the postulates is considered necessary to satisfy, as just finding an agent does not mean that it is the cause of disease.

Thus, it can be ascertained that the CDC believes adherence to the scientific method and the fulfillment of Koch's Postulates are essential logical steps in directly proving that a specific agent causes a specific disease. In alignment with the NIH and the CDC regarding the importance of Koch’s Postulates in determining disease causation is the World Health Organization. On March 27th, 2003, the WHO stated, “Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s postulate.’” On April 16th, 2003, the WHO was kind enough to outline the four essential steps required to prove that a microorganism is the cause of a disease:

“The 13 laboratories have been working on meeting Koch’s postulates, necessary to prove disease causation. These postulates stipulate that to be the causal agent, a pathogen must meet four conditions: it must be found in all cases of the disease, it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture, it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host, and it must be found in the experimental host so infected.”

From these two statenents, it is evident that the WHO recognizes the importance of Koch's four postulates in proving that a microbe can cause disease. In regard to the scientific method, while there may not be a direct quote outlining the exact steps of the scientific method from the WHO, we can piece together their approach. According to the WHO's Health Research Methodology: A Guide for Training in Research Methods, the scientific method “is a systematic body of procedures and techniques applied in carrying out investigation or experimentation targeted at obtaining new knowledge.” It further explains that an “observation, or series of observations triggers a hypothesis; a cross-sectional survey is undertaken to generate proper hypotheses; an observational study establishes associations and supports (or rejects) the hypothesis; and an experiment is conducted to test the hypothesis.” Thus, observation, hypothesis formulation, and experimental testing are key to the scientific method.

We can infer the WHO’s emphasis on this process further from sources such as the History of Vaccines website, which is a member of the WHO-led Vaccine Safety Net (VSN), a network established by the WHO in 2003 to promote access to trustworthy vaccine safety information. This membership suggests that the site adheres to WHO standards for providing reliable and scientifically accurate information, including the importance of the scientific method. To become a VSN member, websites must meet strict criteria regarding credibility, the scientific rigor of their content, and accessibility. The History of Vaccines site, run by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia—the oldest professional medical organization in the United States—serves as a resource for both medical professionals and the general public to learn about medicine as a science and an art, as endorsed by the WHO. This alignment with WHO standards implies that the organization values the scientific method as the basis for presenting vaccine-related information.

According to the History of Vaccines site, the scientific method is a “disciplined, systematic way of asking and answering questions about the physical world.” It noted that there are “certain qualities” that “must apply to all applications of the scientific method.” These include an attempt to gain new knowledge, careful and controlled observations, and independent reproducibility. The steps of the scientific method are listed as making an observation, forming a hypothesis, conducting a test, and making a conclusion.

What Is the Scientific Method?

“The scientific method is a disciplined, systematic way of asking and answering questions about the physical world. Though it can be useful to think of the scientific method as a simple series of steps, there is no single model of the scientific method that can be applied in all situations. Rather, different scientific investigations require different scientific methods. Certain qualities, however, must apply to all applications of the scientific method.

One important quality of a scientific investigation is that it must attempt to answer a question. In other words, an investigation should not attempt to “prove” a point, but to gain knowledge. Another quality is that careful, controlled observations must form the basis of information gathering. Finally, the results of a scientific investigation must be reproducible: other investigators, using the same process, must observe the same results. If a result is not reproducible, the original conclusions must be questioned.

Steps of the Scientific Method

What we think of today as the “steps” of science have developed over time, and they may differ according to the type of investigation being conducted. Generally, though, the steps involve making an observation, forming a hypothesis (the "question" mentioned above), conducting a test, and making a conclusion.

The article correctly emphasizes that scientific investigations begin with observation, but this explanation is a tad simplistic. Not just any observation is sufficient; in natural science, the observation must pertain to a natural phenomenon—an event or process that occurs in nature without human influence. The article provides an example of a “scientific” observation process with Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin. However, this discovery involves human manipulation—specifically, the preparation of bacterial cultures in a lab. Fleming's observation emerged from artificially designed conditions (growing bacteria on plates), though the contamination by mold was accidental. While the relationship between the mold and bacteria was indeed discovered through observation, it occurred in a controlled, laboratory context rather than in a purely natural environment. The scientific method traditionally requires that the initial observation involve a naturally occurring event, which then leads to the development of a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. Since this observation took place under manipulated conditions, it does not entirely align with the requirement for observing phenomena in nature, free from human influence. Fleming was fortunate that the underlying interaction—mold inhibiting bacterial growth—does occur without human intervention in various natural environments.

Observation

Scientific investigations usually begin with an observation that points to an interesting question. One famous example of an observation that led to further investigation was made by Scottish biologist Alexander Fleming in the 1920s. After an absence from his lab, he returned and began to clean some glass plates on which he had been growing a certain kind of bacteria. He noticed an odd thing: one of the plates had become contaminated by mold. Curiously, the area around the mold looked free of bacterial growth. His observation indicated that a causal relationship might exist: the mold or a substance produced by the mold might prevent bacterial growth. Fleming's observation led to a series of scientific tests that resulted in new knowledge: Penicillin could be used to treat bacterial infections.

The observation of a natural phenomenon leads to the generation of a testable and falsifiable hypothesis, which serves as a proposed explanation for a potential cause-and-effect relationship. A well-constructed hypothesis should be simple, addressing a single problem with a potential solution, and must be capable of being proven wrong, highlighting the importance of falsifiability. To propose a hypothesis for testing, the presumed cause—known as the independent variable (IV)—must be identified along with the observed effect, referred to as the dependent variable (DV). For instance, in the case of Alexander Fleming, a hypothesis was: “If filtrates from a certain type of mold are introduced to bacteria, the bacteria will die.” Here, the mold filtrates serve as the presumed cause (IV), while the death of the bacteria represents the observed effect (DV). This hypothesis is falsifiable, as it can be disproven if the bacteria do not die after exposure to the mold filtrates.

Interestingly, the authors admit that if bacteria grow in the presence of a filtrate from the mold, it would disprove the hypothesis. In doing so, they seemingly overlooked the fact that certain bacteria can grow in the presence of penicillin due to the antimicrobial resistance rescue device, which allow them to survive despite the presence of the antibiotic. Consequently, the initial hypothesis was indeed falsified.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a proposal or possible solution generated by observation. In Alexander Fleming’s investigation of antibiotic properties of mold, his hypothesis might have been that “If filtrates from a certain type of mold are introduced to bacteria, the bacteria will die.”

Good hypotheses share several qualities. First, they usually begin with existing knowledge. That is, they don’t propose ideas that are wildly at odds with our general knowledge of how the world works. Additionally, good hypotheses are simple, involving a single problem and possible solution. Finally, good hypotheses are testable and "falsifiable." That is, the proposed solution in the hypothesis can be subjected to an observable test, and through the test, it is possible for the investigator to prove the hypothesis false. The hypothesis above relating to Fleming’s studies of mold is falsifiable, because a test in which bacteria grew in the presence of a filtrate of the mold would have disproved the hypothesis, if it hadn't been true.

The authors next discuss testing the hypothesis using experimental and control groups. Unlike the experimental group, the control group is not subjected to the independent variable, which must be available for variation and manipulation during experimentation. In proving causation involving microorganisms, the presumed causative agent must be purified (free of contaminants) and isolated (separated from everything else) before the experiment begins. According to the 2022 paper How to gain evidence for causation in disease and therapeutic intervention: from Koch’s postulates to counter-counterfactuals by David W. Evans, isolation is defined as “the process of obtaining a pure strain of a microorganism (or virus) from a mixed culture.” Successfully isolating the presumed causal agent is “the most direct approach to discovering the cause of a disease.” Once the presumed causal agent is isolated and removed “from any potential confounders,” its structure and actions can be more easily explored, tested, and identified. This requirement highlights a significant logical challenge in virology: the assumed “viral” particles, which serve as the IV in virological hypotheses, are never available in a purified and isolated state prior to experimentation. As noted by the CDC in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request obtained by Christine Massey, purification and isolation of the assumed “viral” particles directly from the fluids is outside of the bounds of what is possible in virology.

The requester specifies that the requester would like documents related to isolation, defined by the requester as “separation of SARS-COV-2 from everything else also known as purification”; viruses need cells to replicate, and cells require liquid food, so this specific component of the request is outside of what is possible in virology.

Instead, what is presented as “viral” particles are merely byproducts observed after conducting cell culture experiments, which involve the addition of human and animal materials, fetal bovine serum, antimicrobials, nutrients, and numerous confounding variables. The dependent variable (DV) in this context is the cytopathogenic effect (CPE), a non-specific response linked to many “non-viral” factors that occurs solely under artificial laboratory conditions. The hypothesis that a “virus” will cause CPE upon introduction into a cell culture is not derived from an observed natural phenomenon. Consequently, the so-called “gold standard” experiment in virology lacks a valid independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV), is not grounded in hypotheses based on observed natural phenomena, and cannot be properly controlled.

In contrast, in the example of Alexander Fleming, the mold serves as the independent variable, which is present from the start in a purified and isolated state and can be manipulated throughout the experiment. The death of the bacteria serves as the dependent variable. In this case, the experimental group receives filtrates of mold added to bacterial cultures on glass plates, while the control group is not exposed to any mold filtrates. Aside from this crucial difference, both groups are treated identically. If any effects occur in the experimental group that are absent in the control group, those effects can be attributed to the addition of the mold. Ironically, this clear distinction emphasizes the robustness of the proposed experimental design of Fleming compared to the pseudoscientific nature of that found in virology research.

Testing

Many modern scientific studies involve a test with a control group and an experimental group. Other kinds of studies can be done with modeling or research and data analysis. But in this article, we discuss testing done through experimentation.

The investigator conducts the experiment on the control group, just as with the experimental group. The only difference is that the investigator does not subject the control group to the single factor or intervention being tested. This single factor is known as the variable. The control group exists to provide a valid comparison to the experimental group.

For instance, in an experiment testing Fleming’s hypothesis, a scientist could introduce filtrates of mold to cultures of bacteria on glass plates. This would be the experimental group. A control group would contain similar cultures of bacteria, but with no addition of mold filtrates. Both groups would otherwise be subject to exactly the same conditions. Any difference between the two groups would result from the variable, or the single difference between them: the introduction of mold filtrate to the bacterial cultures.

Careful observations and recording of data are crucial during the testing phase of the scientific method. Failure to measure, observe, and record accurately can distort the results of the test.

Once the falsifiable hypothesis has been tested through experimentation using a valid IV and a proper control group, conclusions can be drawn from the data. As stated, a good conclusion takes into account all the data gathered and will reflect on the hypothesis, whether it supports the hypothesis or not. Regarding germ “theory” and virology, researchers, such as Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and John Franklin Enders, ignored the evidence that falsified their hypotheses, and they instead fit their pseudoscientific evidence to support their predetermined conclusions.

Conclusion

A final step in the scientific methods involves analysis and interpretation of the data gathered during the testing phase. This allows the researcher to form a conclusion based on the data. A good conclusion takes into account all the data gathered and will reflect on the hypothesis, whether it supports the hypothesis or not.

Now we will look at various aspects of the scientific method used by different innovators in vaccine development.

As can be seen, the authors provided the same outline of the scientific method that I regularly supply in my requests to those supporting germ “theory” and virology. It is clearly not “my version” or “my definition” of the scientific method. It is simply the scientific method. The only differences here between myself and these authors is in regard to whether evidence supporting virology actually adheres to the scientific method.

In defending virology and vaccines, the authors brought up Edward Jenner, pioneer of the deadly smallpox vaccination and considered the father of “immunology,” as an example of someone who successfully used the scientific method. However, is that really the case?

Edward Jenner: The Importance of Observation

Edward Jenner, born in England in 1749, is one of the most famous physicians in medical history. Jenner tested the hypothesis that infection with cowpox could protect a person from smallpox infection. All vaccines developed since Jenner’s time stem from his work.

Cowpox is an uncommon illness in cattle, usually mild, that can be spread from a cow to a human via sores on the cow's udder. Smallpox, in contrast, was a deadly disease of humans. It killed about 30% of those it infected. Survivors often bore deep, pitted scars on their faces and other parts of the body affected by the blistering illness. Smallpox was a leading cause of blindness.

Jenner's starting point did not involve any observed natural phenomenon. Instead, he relied upon a dairymaid’s statement, which does not constitute an empirical observation of a natural phenomenon in the strict scientific sense, as it wasn't a systematic observation of an event in nature without human interference. In other words, Jenner based his hypothesis on anecdotal stories that relied on individual reports or popular beliefs rather than systematic scientific observation. Keep in mind that the initial observation that people who had cowpox do not become ill with smallpox is correlational and does not imply causation. Just because two phenomena occur together does not mean one causes the other.

Nevertheless, Jenner decided to test the claim by introducing material from a cowpox sore into the arm of an eight-year-old boy, James Phipps. After Phipps recovered, Jenner later exposed him to material from a smallpox sore. When Phipps did not develop smallpox, Jenner declared the experiment a success.

However, Jenner's experiment faces several problems. As pointed out by David W. Evans, the first critical step towards understanding disease causation is proper disease characterization. This involves fully defining the symptoms, signs, pathological changes, and the natural course of the disease so that its presence can be measured and distinguished from other illnesses. Without this, it is impossible to test a cause-and-effect relationship accurately.

Conveniently, Jenner’s 1798 treatise provided the first description of human cowpox, where he stated that cowpox “bears so strong a resemblance to the smallpox that I think it highly probable it may be the source of the disease.” Essentially, cowpox was viewed as a milder form of smallpox, and distinguishing between the two based on physical examination alone was difficult, in not impossible, for physicians. This raises a crucial question: Did Jenner really have two separate, clearly distinguishable diseases to test his hypothesis, or was he simply observing different stages of the same disease process? The lack of clarity on whether cowpox and smallpox were distinct diseases with separate causal agents further weakens the validity of his experiment in proving causality.

Furthermore, Jenner did not have a valid independent variable in purified and isolated cowpox or smallpox “virus” that were ever identified prior to experimentation. A critical aspect of scientific experimentation is the ability to isolate the variable of interest. The independent variable should be a clearly defined factor that is manipulated to observe its effects on a dependent variable without confounding variables present. Jenner's independent variable, which was simply material taken from cowpox cases, was not well-defined or purified, leaving room for plenty of confounding factors. This undermines the strength of any causal claim between cowpox exposure and “immunity” to smallpox. By not identifying the cowpox “virus” as the causative agent prior to experimentation, Jenner's approach failed to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship. Without isolating the effects of a cowpox “virus,” any observed “immunity” could result from other factors.

Jenner is said to have been interested in the observation of a dairymaid. She told him, “I shall never have smallpox, for I have had cowpox. I shall never have an ugly pockmarked face.” And many other dairy workers commonly believed that infection with cowpox protected them from smallpox.

Given that the protective effect of cowpox infection was common local knowledge, why was Jenner’s involvement important? Jenner decided to systematically test the observation, which would then form the basis for a practical application of the benefit of cowpox infection.

Jenner scratched some material from a cowpox sore on the hand of a milkmaid into the arm of eight-year-old James Phipps, the son of Jenner's gardener. Young Phipps felt poorly for several days, but made a full recovery.

A short time later, Jenner scratched some matter from a fresh human smallpox sore into Phipps’s arm to make him ill with smallpox. Phipps, however, did not contract smallpox. Jenner tested his idea on other humans and published a report of his findings.

We know now that the virus that causes cowpox belongs to the Orthopox family of viruses. Orthopox viruses also include variola viruses, the ones that cause smallpox.

Jenner’s method of vaccination against smallpox grew in popularity and eventually spread around the globe. About 150 years after Jenner’s death in 1823, smallpox would be making its last gasps. The World Health Organization eventually declared smallpox to be eradicated from the planet in 1980, after a massive surveillance and vaccination program.

The authors attempt to illustrate how Jenner supposedly adhered to the steps of the scientific method. However, a significant issue arises when they acknowledge that Jenner did not use a control group in his experiments. This omission is critical; without a control group—individuals who were not “infected” with cowpox but were exposed to smallpox—it is impossible to determine whether the observed outcome (“protection” from smallpox) was genuinely due to cowpox “infection,” other factors, or whether it even occurs at all.

The control group is essential for comparing results and establishing causality. It serves to demonstrate what happens without the intervention, which is crucial for confirming that any observed “protection” was specifically due to the cowpox inoculation rather than other causes.

As explained in David W. Evans’ paper, using a “preventative” intervention like a vaccine applied to an individual who is subsequently exposed to a suspected causal agent does not constitute sufficient evidence for causal proof. A continued absence of disease does not confirm that the agent causes disease or that the vaccine “worked.” Even if all subjects given the same preventative intervention do not develop the disease after exposure, this still fails to provide evidence that the agent causes the disease and that “protection” was conferred.

The only way to effectively prove causation and “protection” is by including an additional control group exposed simultaneously to the presumed causative agent without receiving the preventative intervention, which would subsequently develop the disease while none in the pre-treated group do. Without this necessary component, Jenner's experiment fails to account for confounding variables that might influence the outcome, thereby compromising the validity of the results.

An explanation of Jenner’s scientific method is shown below:

• Observation: People who have had cowpox do not become ill with smallpox.

• Hypothesis: If a person has been intentionally infected with cowpox, then that person will be protected from becoming ill after a purposeful exposure to smallpox.

• Test: Infect a person with cowpox. Then try to infect the person with smallpox. (Note that Jenner did not use a control group in his experiment.)

• Conclusion: Infecting a person with cowpox protects from infection with smallpox.

Jenner repeated his experiment several times and got the same results.  Other scientists did likewise and got the same results.  Jenner is famous for having applied the scientific method to establish the means of preventing smallpox.

Several key elements in Jenner's chain of causation appear to be missing. First, the initial observation was anecdotal rather than derived from an observed natural phenomenon. Additionally, the independent variable was not a purified or isolated pathogen but rather diseased material containing many unknown and potentially confounding variables. Without a proper control group, it was impossible to account for these confounders, leading to methodological flaws and issues.

Moreover, Jenner’s hypothesis was called into question on multiple occasions, as there were reports of people contracting smallpox after being vaccinated with cowpox material. In fact, there were claims that cowpox was no safer than smallpox inoculation. While Jenner's work followed the framework of the scientific method in his time, the lack of control over variables and the presence of falsifying evidence suggest that the results were scientifically tenuous. This might help explain why the smallpox vaccine later faced scrutiny, earning a controversial reputation as the “most dangerous vaccine known to man” due to its association with severe adverse effects.

Time and Experience have at length proved that I was not influenced by erroneous conjectures.

Blindness, lameness, and deformity have been the result in innumerable instances; and its fatal venom has removed many an infant untimely from the world.

The security of the Cow Pox against the Small Pox, the great boon held out to the credulous English novelists, has been so fully overset, under every variety of circumstances, that I thought a few well-authenticated cases, to confirm the theory on which I opposed the practice, would satisfy all people of unbiassed judgment; and put a stop to this destructive insanity.

-Dr. Benjamin Moseley

A Treatise on the Lues Bovilla, or Cow-Pox. London, 1805.

Referring back to David W. Evans’ 2022 paper one final time, he emphasized that since germ “theory” is grounded in causal hypotheses, the research supporting it must use methodologies capable of rigorously testing causal claims. Evans praised Robert Koch’s logic, noting that his approach to causal experimental methodology was second to none. He explained how Koch had provided a methodological blueprint for establishing a chain of evidence implicating microbes as the necessary and sufficient causal agents of “infectious” diseases. Evans argued that the causes of a disease must be confirmed through this logical sequence of evidence. Evans’ perspective aligns with those of the CDC, WHO, and The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, all of which recognize Koch's Postulates as foundational steps in identifying the cause of diseases. These principles remain widely accepted by scientists today. However, despite the importance of these logical criteria, there is an attempt to make an exception for asymptomatic carriers, which introduces an unfalsifiable hypothesis—undermining the scientific method that had been discussed previously within the History of Vaccine article.

Robert Koch: Steps to Identify the Cause of a Disease

Robert Koch (1843-1910) was a German physician who helped establish bacteriology as a science. Koch made important discoveries in identifying the bacteria that cause anthrax, cholera, and tuberculosis, at a time when understanding of microbes was just emerging.

Koch and his colleague Friedrich Loeffler developed a method to identify a disease-causing agent. Scientists today follow these basic principles, which we now call Koch’s postulates, when trying to identify the cause of an infectious disease. Koch’s postulates are based on careful observations and reproducibility.

1. The microbe is present in each case of the disease.

2. The microbe can be taken from the host and grown independently.

3. The disease can be produced by introducing a pure culture of the microbe into a healthy experimental host.*

4. The microbe can be isolated and identified from the host infected in Step 3.

*One exception to Step 3 is that some individuals may be infected with a disease-causing microbe and not show signs of the disease. These are known as asymptomatic carriers.

https://historyofvaccines.org/vaccines-101/how-are-vaccines-made/scientific-method-vaccine-history

What can be gathered from The College of Physicians of Philadelphia's article is the importance of adhering to the scientific method and fulfilling Koch's Postulates when establishing direct evidence for claims of causation in “infectious” disease. As previously mentioned, the WHO supports the scientific method, which includes Koch's Postulates as a framework for demonstrating causal relationships between “pathogens” and diseases. Therefore, the WHO and its associated networks reinforce the necessity of using the scientific method, including Koch's Postulates, in proving causal claims. For causation to be substantiated, the evidence must be derived from rigorous scientific inquiry and meet these criteria.

The NIH, CDC, WHO, and The College of Physicians of Philadelphia are not the only organizations that support the scientific method and the fulfillment of Koch's Postulates to establish disease causation. The American Association of Immunologists (AAI), founded in 1913, is recognized as a premier professional organization dedicated to improving global health by advancing immunology and enhancing public understanding of the immune system. The AAI has articulated its agreement with the previous sources on this matter.

In a document discussing the scientific method, the AAI noted that the acceptance of the scientific method has led to improved medical practices since the 1900s. It emphasized that the central purpose of scientific inquiry is to develop explanations for natural phenomena, highlighting the importance of a structured approach to understanding disease causation.

“Often as teachers we tell students what they need to know without helping them understand why they should know it. The following unit was designed to give students an understanding of how the acceptance of the scientific method led to better medical practices in the 1900’s. Students will learn that well-accepted theories are ones that are supported by different kinds of scientific investigations. This unit addresses the NYS Living Environment Standard #1 “The central purpose of scientific inquiry is to develop explanations of natural phenomena in a continuing and creative process.”

Under the heading “Overview: Concepts Addressed,” the document highlights that Koch's Postulates remain relevant today. It also outlines the scientific method, emphasizing that controlled experiments require a clear hypothesis, defined independent and dependent variables, and proper controls to ensure reliable results.

I. Overview: Concepts addressed

• How infectious diseases have affected history

• Koch’s Postulates (what they are and how are they are still relevant today)

• Designing a controlled experiment (developing a hypothesis, defining independent and dependent variables, importance of using control groups for comparison, testing only 1 variable at a time)

• Organizing data in tables and graphs

The document briefly discusses Koch's Postulates, emphasizing their role as a scientifically sound method for determining whether a microorganism is the causative agent of a disease. These logic-based postulates are still referenced by scientists today as a foundational framework in microbiology and “infectious” disease research.

In 1884 German scientist Robert Koch developed a scientifically sound way of determining whether a disease was caused by an organism (such as a bacterium, virus, or other)

What was later called Koch’s postulates is still used by scientists today when looking for causes of new diseases (such as AIDS)

Koch’s postulates

1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.

2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in culture.

3. When injected into another host it must cause the same disease.

4. You should be able to isolate the same microorganism again from the newly infected host.”

In discussing the scientific method, the document explains that it involves testing proposed explanations, or hypotheses, based on observations. It highlights the importance of repeating experiments, using a large sample size, and employing objective data collection to minimize bias. The first step is to determine the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable in the organism being tested, which helps in developing a testable hypothesis. Additionally, it emphasizes testing only one independent variable at a time and ensuring that proper controls are in place, with one group not exposed to the independent variable.

“Scientific inquiry involves the testing of proposed explanations involving the use of conventional techniques and procedures. In this lab you will devise ways of making observations to test proposed explanations.

Below are the major steps involved in testing a proposed explanation (hypothesis).

[Note: It is important to remember that to avoid bias in an experiment it is important to repeat experiments, use a large sample size, and data collection needs to be objective.]

1) Title of experiment = What are we trying to figure out?

a. Ex: “The effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable on the organism being tested”

2) Hypothesis = What you predict will happen during the experiment (hypotheses are predictions based upon both research and observations

a. Ex: “If you do this, then this will happen.”

3) Independent variable = What you are testing or changing in your experiment

a. [Note: you can only test one independent variable at a time]

b. The independent variable goes on the X axis and it is usually the first column in a data table

c. Remember to include units on graphs and tables.

d. Ex: Time, temperature, and pH are common independent variables

4) Dependent variable = What you are measuring

a. Dependent variable always goes on the y axis and is usually on the right hand side of a data table

b. Remember to include units on graphs and tables.

5) Procedures = Describe as completely as possible the steps involved in setting up the experiment, including how and when you will make your measurements. Describe the groups that you will be setting up (including a proper control). State what you will measure and how you will measure it.

6) Controlled factors = things that it is important to keep the same during the experiment (everything except the variable being tested must be treated equally)

7) Control group = the group that is used as a standard for comparison in the experiment. Usually the group that does not get exposed to the independent variable”

https://www.aai.org/AAISite/media/Education/HST/Archive/2004_Morgan_Final.pdf

The AAI supports the exact steps of the scientific method as I outlined, from the observation of natural phenomena to validating or invalidating hypotheses through controlled experimentation. Additionally, the AAI highlights the relevance and necessity of Koch's Postulates in proving disease causation. The document emphasizes that both the scientific method and Koch's Postulates form the critical foundation in the chain of causation that researchers must meet in order to claim that any microbe can act as a transmissible agent of disease.

While references from the NIH, CDC, WHO, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, and the American Association of Immunologists should suffice for those who rely on appeals to authority, there is one more source that further solidifies this position on the essential steps in establishing causation. This final example comes from the textbook Microbiology with Diseases by Taxonomy, written by Professor Robert W. Bauman, Ph.D.

Robert W. Bauman holds a Ph.D. in Biology from Stanford University, an M.A. in Botany from the University of Texas at Austin, and a B.A. in Biology from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a full professor of biology in the Department of Biological Sciences at Amarillo College in Amarillo, Texas, where he previously served as department chair. He has been teaching microbiology and human anatomy and physiology since 1988, and was a recipient of the John. F. Mead Faculty Excellence Award, nominated by the students of Amarillo College. Dr. Bauman is an active member of the American Society of Microbiology (ASM), Texas Community College Teacher's Association (TCCTA), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the Human Anatomy and Physiology Society (HAPS).

https://books.google.com/books/about/Microbiology.html?id=xmcBngEACAAJ&source=kp_author_description

According to Professor Robert W. Bauman, the debate over spontaneous generation led to the development of a generalized scientific method, which involves deriving explanations from observations through carefully controlled experiments. He outlined four key steps in the scientific method, starting with the observation of a phenomenon. These observations then lead to the formation of a hypothesis, which is subsequently tested through experimentation to either validate or invalidate the hypothesis.

The debate over spontaneous generation led in part to the development of a generalized scientific method by which questions are answered through observations of the outcomes of carefully controlled experiments. It consists of four steps:

1. A group of observations leads a scientist to ask a question about some phenomenon.

2. The scientist generates a hypothesis - a potential answer to the question.

3. The scientist designs and conducts an experiment to test the hypothesis.

4. Based on the observed results of the experiment, the scientist either accepts, rejects, or modifies the hypothesis.”

Professor Bauman emphasized the importance of history in understanding the development of microbiology. This is precisely why I, along with others, examine the foundational work and evidence supporting germ “theory” and virology. If the foundations are based on pseudoscience or incomplete chains of causation, then any subsequent research built on these foundations will be flawed. Techniques like cell culture, which remains the “gold standard” today, have deep historical roots. If these roots are not grounded in scientific evidence and principles, then the validity of these techniques should be questioned.

Bauman acknowledged that many unresolved questions from the past remain and await future answers. While I may disagree to some extent, he pointed out that early experiments by scientists like Pasteur and Koch helped lay the groundwork for the scientific method. According to Bauman, learning and understanding the scientific method is crucial for being well-prepared to analyze complex problems in the future.

“Though it mightr not seem as important as microbial structure or metabolism, history is fundamental to the story of microbiology. Some of the most important techmiques used today to analyze and identity microbes have very old historical roots. The questions of yesterday in many cases remain unanswered, awating future resolution. As you study the material in Chapter 1, focus on the tollowing key ideas:

The central tenets of the scientific method: Early experiments by Pasteur, Koch, and others helped to lay the foundations of the scientific method. By learning and understanding the scientitic method, you will be better prepared to analyze the complex problems presented later in the text and solve them.”

Professor Bauman highlighted the significance of Koch's Postulates, emphasizing that the development of these steps “that must be taken to prove the cause of any infectious disease” was one of Koch's greatest achievements.

“Investigations into etiology, the study of the causation of disease, were dominated by German physician Robert Koch (1843-1910). Koch initiated careful microbiological laboratory techniques in his search for disease agents, such as he bacterium responsible for anthrax. He and his colleagues were responsible for developing techniques to isolate bacteria, stain cells, estimate population size sterilize growth media, and transfer bacteria between media. They also achieved he first photomicrograph of bacteria. But one of Koch's greatest achievements was the elaboration, in his publications on tuberculosis, of a set of steps that must be taken to prove the cause of any infectious disease. Tnese four steps are now known as Koch's postulates:

1. The suspected causative agent must be found in every case of the disease and be absent from healthy hosts.

2. The agent must be isolated and grown outside the host.

3. When the agent is introduced to a healthy, susceptible host, the host must get the disease.

4. The same agent must be found in the diseased experimental host.”

Professor Bauman stated that Koch's Postulates are the cornerstone of “infectious” disease etiology, and that researchers must satisfy all four postulates to definitively prove that a given agent causes a specific disease. He acknowledged that in certain cases, it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill all of Koch's Postulates. Despite the inability to complete the full chain of causation along with the admittance that doing so is an absolute necessity to establish proof, microorganisms are still often attributed as the causative agents of diseases today.

“The study of the cause of a disease is called etiology. Diseases can be classified into numerous categories such as those that are hereditary (passed from parent to offspring), congenital (present at birth), among many others. In the 19th century. Pasteur, Koch, and other scientists proposed the germ theory of disease, which states that disease is caused by infections of pathogenic microorganisms. Koch's postulates are the cornerstone of infectious disease etiology. To prove that a given infectious agent causes a given disease, a scientisr must satisty all four postulates:

1. The suspected agent must be present in every case of the disease.

2. The agent must be isolated and grown in pure culture.

3. The cultural agent must cause the disease when introduced into a healthy, susceptible host.

4. The same agent must be reisolated from the diseased host.

Certain circumstances can make the use of Koch's postulates difficult or even impossible: some pathogens cannot be cultured in the lab; some drseases are caused by multiple pathogens; ethical concerns exist for testing Koch's postulate with pathogens that infect only humans; it is not possible to establish a single cause for some infectious diseases; and the causative agents of some diseases have been overlooked or ignored.”

https://archive.org/details/studyguideformic0000baum/mode/1up

The explanations from virology’s own sources clearly outline the steps of the scientific method and the necessity of satisfying Koch’s Postulates. This demonstrates that the scientific evidence I request is not based on arbitrary guidelines or unrealistic standards. I didn’t invent my own version of the scientific method, nor did I invoke Koch’s Postulates to create an impossible hurdle for germ “theory” and virology defenders. Instead, their own sources—despite not practicing what they preach—support the criteria I present.

While citing these sources as an answer to appeals to authority strengthens my position, it should have been unnecessary if those defending virology truly understood the principles of natural science and basic logic. For scientific inquiry to adhere to both the scientific method and Koch's Postulates, the chain of causation must begin with an observed natural phenomenon, leading to a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. This hypothesis must include a valid independent variable (IV) that can be varied and manipulated to assess its effect on the dependent variable (DV), and the resulting experiment must directly address what the hypothesis seeks to explain. However, virology lacks these foundational elements, failing to meet both of the necessary criteria. These steps are critical to scientifically demonstrating that any microorganism is the cause of a specific disease. Without adherence to the scientific method and Koch's Postulates, the chain of causation breaks down, leaving claims unproven. Defenders of germ “theory” and virology often attempt to undermine or dispute these requirements as they recognize that the chain supporting their claims is broken, and they are unable to repair it.

Dr Sam Bailey

had two great interviews this time around. The first was with the always amazing Christine Massey discussing her FOI work.

Christine Massey: "Don't trust Public Health."

The second was with Dr. Sam White, a general Practitioner in the United Kingdom, discussing the medical mafia.

Dr Sam White on the Medical Mafia

Amandha Dawn Vollmer

did a great job explaining the misunderstanding surrounding high blood pressure.

Hypertension aka High Blood Pressure Protocol

Dawn Lester

expertly debunked the debunker in her latest.

Debunking the Debunker!

Unbekoming

put the spotlight on the excellent work of the Perth Group who exposed the HIV fraud.

HIV - a virus like no other