re: Why do you think that TD is such a magnet for those with alternative beliefs?

quote:

---

Human to human aerosol transmission.

---

So wait, you want proof of human to human aerosol transmission but not other mammals. Do you want the data to be inferred from infection rates or do you want an experiment with non-isolated secretions that are given person-to-person?

quote:

---

do you want an experiment with non-isolated secretions that are given person-to-person?

---

This. It's been attempted and failed. The entire concept of human contagion rests on it. And you not being a misled arrogant butcher in a totally corrupt crime against humanity. So, come on.

LINK

LINK

They're old. There's others I can find from 1910-1920ish. I'm sure the assumption is they've been repeated with different results. So, show me that

You are a highly educated doctor with great credentials who touts science and rigor. And you have no scientific basis for your belief in the concept of contagion. Maybe you will find it. But right now you don't. You were just taught.


I think all "outbreaks" are mutual exposure. You were never proven that's not the case, and that contagion is real. It was never proven to you scientifically. You were simply taught Indoctrinated and not allowed to believe otherwise.


I hope you find it and confirm how smart and sciencey you are and justify what you do.

Absolutely pathetic. Indoctrinated lackey. Don't even have proof of your concepts. No idea what you're doing. You think everything is a physical microscopic problem to be treated directly. Pushing pills for the drug companies for anxiety so you can given them liver disease in 10-20 years and then push pills for that. And you tell yourself you're the genius saving humanity. Absolute piece of shite.

quote:

---

I think all "outbreaks" are mutual exposure.

---

they didn't get it from each other. They all got it from the environment. That didn't occur to you? Don't you want proof Mr science doctor?

quote:

---

Absolutely pathetic. Indoctrinated lackey. Don't even have proof of your concepts. No idea what you're doing. You think everything is a physical microscopic problem to be treated directly. Pushing pills for the drug companies for anxiety so you can given them liver disease in 10-20 years and then push pills for that. And you tell yourself you're the genius saving humanity. Absolute piece of shite.

---

Well, that isn't the answer of a very smart person. First off, in the Rosenau experiment, they were looking for Pfeiffer's bacillus, and not influenza. That undermines the experiment completely, because the bacteria that represented Pfeiffer's bacillus was actually several strains of Haemophilus influenzae, which Pfeiffer linked to influenza in 1892, but wasn't the causative agent. Of the several strains of H. influenzae, only one is pathogenic, HiB. The spray they used was not a meaningful measure of influenza virus because it contained samples of H. influenzae, which retained the influenza nomenclature despite not causing that disease. You posted this because you did not understand the difference nor the history. You should calm down and read a bit more before posting things like that.

Secondly, non-isolated samples from infected individuals will always carry something called IgA, as the upper respiratory tract along with portions of the alimentary tract exhibit what is called mucosal immunity. Lower respiratory tract tissue have their immunity mediated by alveolar macrophages, which represent most of the free cells within alveolar spaces. They express IL-10, NO, and TGF-B and are poorly phagocytic. They also inhibit T Cell responses. There are relatively few aggregated lympho9id follicles in the lamina propria in lower airways compared with mucosal areas and there is less likelihood of humoral immune response in these locations. Non-isolated upper respiratory secretions are going to contain high levels of IgA, which is specifically designed with a population in mind. What I mean is that because secretions are easily spread within any given population, there is generally no autoimmune Ab response to someone else's mucosal immunity. That fact undermines the Rosenau experiment completely, as well as any other experiment that uses non-isolated secretions.

quote:

---

they didn't get it from each other. They all got it from the environment. That didn't occur to you? Don't you want proof Mr science doctor?

---

How did the environmental exposure transmit the disease? Be specific. Post another study, maybe this time from this century.

quote:

---

You can look at it under a microscope and theorize how it infects. You can see pathogens in common. Yes.

You can't show actual transmission. Damn.

---

So you can't admit that the Rosenau experiments were looking for the wrong thing? And obviously there is no rebuttal for mucosal immunity, which I knew there wouldn't be.

And I wanted something more specific on environmental transmission vectors, but alas.

quote:

---

The thing I'm looking for is contagion.

---

So first, you need to understand that the Rosenau experiment was a terrible example. Do you understand why?

quote:

---

Not your theories from looking at it under a microscope.

---

What theories have I proposed?

quote:

---

Show aerosol contagion.

---

Again, do you want me to show contagion as it relates to airborne or droplet transmission? You keep using words and you don't know what they mean in a scientific context.

quote:

---

This should be disconcerting to you. It was to me. You're being very evasive and full of shite.

---

You are being evasive. The Rosenau experiment you posted was completely idiotic and didn't prove anything you stated because you apparently don't know the history of microbiology and you apparently won't admit that. Second, you keep using words wildly, which isn't really characteristic a of a superior mind.

Who knows what evidence you will like, but here we go.
LINK

Can we please talk about how idiotic it was that you posted the Rosenau experiment, or are we going to ignore that? That was one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen.

Does this suffice? I'll just keep posting studies all day and you'll briefly look at them and completely misunderstand them. It will be entertaining.

LINK

quote:

---

Come on man. There have been a million cruel inhumane tests. Someone had to have people sneeze in others faces and get them sick.

---

So you apparently don't believe in mucosal immunity either. Okay.

So let's say there is an environmental exposure to TB. How does TB enter the lungs?

quote:

---

And yet you call people an idiot, anti-science etc. You literally can't prove airborn human to human contagion. You don't know why you believe in it.

---

Brother, your confidence in the Rosenau experiment was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on an internet forum. My dear god it was incredibly dumb.