Interesting, I hadnât heard of Kochâs postulates but even a naive socal scientist like myself sees through them. A quick Google search details that these were abandoned by Koch himself. The fact that viruses donât satisfy these postulates doesnât discount virology as an observed science. The first is flawed because there are many asymptomatic cases of infection (virus and bacteria). The second is flawed because some things, like viruses, need a host so wonât grow in pure culture. The third is flawed because some people have strong immune systems or again can be asymptomatic. Also some pathogens cause different reactions depending on the person. If youâre trying to show this to prove that virology is BS it isnât remotely close to a compelling argument.
Whataboutisms. Exceptions prove the rule, if they have to be exceptions to the rule to exist. 
âAsymptomaticâ is a fairly modern term popularized via Event 201, not common prior. If you donât have any symptoms, thatâs traditionally identified as, you know ⌠not being sick. If it doesnât make everyone sick, but only some people have reactions to it, is it not more allergen than pathogen?
For the second, yeah, thatâs a flaw. Viruses can remain intact in a number of environments whether or not they are reactive in them.
Your third is your same critique as the first, and I have the same answerâŚ
Yes. I think it brings to light questions of contagion to know that itâs not as certain as itâs sold to be, that the Terrain of the person has much more to do with how it reacts to what it encounters than the ubiquitous germs we all encounter.
carriers exist and can carry pathogens while not being affected by them
strong immune systems mean that one can be infected and the body fights it off, sometimes without ever showing symptoms.
Right. So, we have one factor whose presence varies among those whose symptoms are said to be caused by it ⌠no method of falsifying or directly observing that claim, or isolating for the other possible variables of causeâŚ
ie, Not Observed Science
Agree with Italy number one, but some here should not be listed 
Let me get this logic. Some dude makes up some rules (hypotheses) for determining infection sources, these rules are proven to be irrelevant, most of the rules are abandoned even by the dude who made up the rules, and thatâs proof that virology isnât real? Actually itâs proof that science adjusted its hypotheses in the face of empirical evidence. Thatâs just called science. If you randomly assigned groups of people or plants or other living organisms into two groups and gave one of those groups injections of a virus would many more people in one group develop symptoms? Thatâs science. But Iâm breaking my own rule here about arguing on the Internet. Hey why is arguing on the Internet like competing in the special Olympics? Even if you win youâre still retarded.
are you actually saying that people cannot be carriers of a disease, passing it along to others without getting the disease? look up typhoid mary for one quick, verifiable, proven carrier of a disease that did not get infected with said disease. youâre putting a whole lot of other words into that statement that i am not claiming at all. in fact, iâm just clarifying something and not arguing, so iâll just leave it at that. you donât have to believe something for it to be real. enjoy the weekend.
Whatâs the rent?
