Ah yes Hill’s nine step procedure. Hill’s criteria for causation is debated to this day - here is a reference: Schünemann H, Hill S, Guyatt G; et al. (2011). "The GRADE approach and Bradford Hill's criteria for causation". Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 65 (5): 392–95. doi:10.1136/jech.2010.119933. PMID 20947872.
But let’s say it is okay. No flaws. If you like it Glenn why has it not been used to identify SARS-CoV-2? Instead of criticize my preferred testing procedure why did you evade the issue namely there have been no studies done that identify a virus known as SARS-CoV-2 and is running wild in our environment and proved to cause a disease coded as COVID-19? Is that unreasonable? But you cannot find such a study can you.
Koch’s Postulates, which he refined and published in 1890, are still a useful benchmark today in judging whether there is a cause and effect relationship between a microbe or toxin and disease.
Ref.: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... lekey=7105
https://science.umd.edu/classroom/bsci4 ... ulates.htm
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedicti ... postulates
I like it because it is a simple 4 steps process that anyone can understand. First find the agent in a diseased body. Two, isolate the pathogen and purify it so as to have no contamination of the agent. Three, inject this pure agent into a healthy body and see if it causes the same disease. Four, if a disease occurs in the healthy subject re-isolate the agent from the subject in step three and purify it. If it is the same as in the step one body you have a cause and effect answer. Today we have much better ways of isolating viruses and seeing them so Koch’s steps are a reasonable method to prove or disprove an infectious viral agent. Dr. Rivers criteria is a modified version of Koch’s criteria, but just with extra steps and could be used as well. But both have not been used to prove SARS-CoV-2 exist and causes a disease coded as COVID-19. Just as Hill’s criteria has not been used.
So my bowling brothers and sisters the point here for all to analyze is simple as I posted near the beginning of this discussion. No evidence has been presented that this virus exists and causes a disease or pandemic. Is it not logical to examine the first step in a scientific process? After all the first step is the foundation of the issue. If the foundation is not solid the house falls. No evidence of a virus than all numbers associated with it are meaningless. All steps to allegedly protect against it are meaningless and groundless.
Did the WHO change their course. Not in their scientific section. If you will note in my last comment Glenn that after I quoted sections from their April 2020 Interim Guidance manual I noted that their June edition said the exact same thing. And again you referenced an April news statement of the CDC and I quoted from their May 2020 journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases. So when they release news to the general public it says one thing, but when they cite the science it says the opposite. Why are you missing these details?
That is why these organization have no credibility with many doctors like myself. Their private for profit corporate mandate is to make and sell vaccines. And they make billions from them every year. That is why I look to the established science. Not what some biased corporate non-elected officer at the CDC or WHO says.
So my bowling brothers and sisters I think that both sides of this issue have presented their arguments. While there has been a lot of opinion, speculation, and reliance on private corporations such as the WHO and CDC, I have tried to keep to simple basic science, namely established protocols to determine a virus’ existence, is it causing something, death statistics, and some observations correlated to hard data, and Randomized Control Trial studies - the gold standard of medical studies. And while this discussion has gotten side tracked with additional comments and questions irrelevant to the main issue I have replied with reasonable answers with scientific evidence to refute those issues such as masks wearing. But the main argument remains unchallenged. No study using reasonable scientific protocols such as Koch’s, Rivers, or even Hill’s has been done to prove a pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 exists. It is up to you my bowling brothers and sisters to determine which set of arguments is sound and reasonable, or at the very least makes you think to look into this subject more. You can hear the other side in the mainstream news. My side of references that you can use are Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Rashid Buttar, Dr. Delores Cahill, Dr. Russel Blaylock, Dr. Sheri Tenpenny, Dr. Bruce Lipton, Dr. Judy Milkvitz, Dr. Pam Popper, Dr. Denis Rancourt, Dr. Stioan Alexov - President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, Paul V Sheridan - http://pvsheridan.com/sheridan2fauci-1-21july2020.pdf
, Del Bigtree journalist/producer on bitchute.com, Brian Rose -journalist on londonreal.tv, David Crowe - researcher at theinfectiousmyth.com, Jon Rapprt - journalist nomorefakenews.com, healthimpactnews.com to name a few. These professionals are on youtube or bitchute, or have their own websites.
I would also like to thank Megamav for allowing this discussion to be host here.