Talk:Koch's postulates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Koch's postulates is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within microbiology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
[edit] Older comments
Note:
I am currently away from my reference books at my home and will fix the above text as soon as I am able.
I don't really understand this. Does the second postulate say that the pathogen must be able to be grown in a a pure culture, or this this merely a step before postulate 3? Also, my biology textbook thinks that postulate 4 continues with the two cultures being shown to be identical. Any advice from knowledgeable persons is much appreciated! Thanks. -- postglock 16:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
There is some information here regarding the example of leprosy not being able to be grown in a pure culture. I am still unsure of the implications though. I suppose it suggests Koch's postulates are just that, postulates with exemptions, not laws? -- postglock 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- they are postulates, not laws. I have updated the article with a little more information, as there are always exceptions to rules... --Grcampbell 19:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
I've changed the text (see history) to say he abandoned the second part of the fiorst postulate. I.E. the organism must still be in all affected animals, but not neccesari;y absent in healthy one. Rich Farmbrough 23:18 3 March 2006 (UTC).
