THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Peaker
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Peaker » Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:44 pm

Hello All, we are reading all recent posts, and a few past ones, as this forum is one small island of sanity in a vast sea of ....(insert your own word here).

I will refer to the Tychos here to say this: in that world we live and breath as empirical beings. Collecting datum after datum for centuries, then finally a model construction is attempted. Bravo.

But with this recent event, not unlike the nuclear hoax, we should work in the opposite way(correct me if I’m wrong) by proposing this model: the Corona, if real, would be too unpredictable to risk being manipulated by men. Anything invisible, hidden or secret falls into this category immediately....

Regards,

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Sat May 02, 2020 3:16 pm

Thanks to everyone for their great contributions to this thread! I especially liked the siamese twins mentioned by Seneca. If this is in fact true, it should stop any discussion about the germ theory once and for all.

@sharpstuff Of course I am willing to consider the possibility that the DNA or parts thereof are only artifacts of the handling of the material. However, I don't think the procedure you describe is performed before doing the PCR tests in general.

Back on the topic of contagion, I finally found the source for the infection experiments during the spanish flu:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/ wrote: Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”

Altair
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Mon May 04, 2020 11:17 am

That reminds me of N. Taleb's works. He's highly critical of current "scientific" methodology that in many cases, doesn't bother to dig into causality chains and naively assumes that correlation implies causality. Much less getting to the root causes of disease. An example are the statins (cholesterol lowering drugs). It was assumed that, as the artherial plaque is mainly build of lipids, lowering cholesterol would be good. However, recent studies demonstrate that statins don't lower the overall mortality rate at all, and that at elder patients, a higher cholesterol level is associated with LESS mortality! Even more, statin use is only correlated with an quite low decrease of cardiovascular risk in already high-risk patients, with no noticeable effect upon low and medium risk patients.

Back to viruses, DNA/RNA presence could be akin to stating that firemen are present in fires, and the larger the fire, the more firemen on the scene. So, firemen are the cause of fires.

Anyway, as it's clear that 'infectious' diseases come in waves, there must be some commonality factor among the affected, and it would be a good thing to find out what it is. As I mentioned in another post, years ago in Spain a mysterious pneumonia initially attributed to a virus was later found to be caused by toxic oil. So any agent that could be spread and distributed over a given geographical area would cause an epidemic-like pattern.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Mon May 04, 2020 7:58 pm

rusty wrote:
Sat May 02, 2020 3:16 pm
Thanks to everyone for their great contributions to this thread! I especially liked the siamese twins mentioned by Seneca. If this is in fact true, it should stop any discussion about the germ theory once and for all.

@sharpstuff Of course I am willing to consider the possibility that the DNA or parts thereof are only artifacts of the handling of the material. However, I don't think the procedure you describe is performed before doing the PCR tests in general.

Back on the topic of contagion, I finally found the source for the infection experiments during the spanish flu:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/ wrote: Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”
Interesting that you bring this up. All the experiments you mention are describef in a book of just under 100 years old that can be downloaded for free from Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/books/det ... 1DAAAAYAAJ

I have summarized it below but don't let that stop you from checking it out for yourself.

It describes US Army experiments from 1918 and 1919 with military volunteers to see how flu could be passed from one person to another. They talk about "influenza", now they would call this the Spanish Flu. According to Wikipedia, the Spanish Flu started in the US in January 1918 and had the remarkable ability to affect young adults. The experiments were usually unsuccessful.

The book consists of three separate parts, each describing a specific set of experiments:

1) On Gallups Island In Boston, November-December 1918

2) In San Francisco, November-December 1918

3) Back on Gallups Island, February-March 1919

Many attempts were made to transmit the disease to patients shortly after they developed the disease. For example, in the first series of experiments with 62 volunteers, 39 of whom had never had the flu:

-secretions from the upper respiratory tract were introduced into the nose, throat and eyes of the volunteers
-secretions from the nose, throat, mouth, along with coughed up mucus were injected under the skin after filtering
- blood of patients was injected under the skin.
-In experiment 7, 10 volunteers were taken to hospital where they each sat close to a patient with acute symptoms, with whom they had a conversation for about 3 minutes. At the end of the conversation, the patient had to breathe in 5 times deeply and cough in the face of the volunteer (!). There were 10 patients and each of the 10 volunteers was made to come into contact with each patient.

The results (page 16): None of the volunteers got the flu. Only one of the 62 volunteers became ill: before the experiment his tonsils were already slightly enlarged, 48 hours later he developed a headache, low fever and sore throat. His tonsils were red (according to the German tnew Medicine(GNM), this is the healing phase of a conflict not wanting / being able to swallow). However, surgeon Donald Currie, who was in charge of the station where the tests continued, contracted flu and pneumonia by the end of the study and died. It is not mentioned if he was Involved in any of the experiments.
The researchers were very surprised at the lack of infections and suggested the possibility that the volunteers might have become immune from being exposed to the virus anyway. 186 of the 1058 men had the flu in the station they came from in the previous months.
The second series of experiments in San Francisco happened about the same time as the first. The army base was specially chosen because the disease had not yet occurred there. Of the 50 volunteers, 44 had never had the flu. The experiments and results were similar: nobody got the flu, one person got tonsillitis. The negative results were now explained because the samples from the patients might have been on the road for too long and therefore lost their infectivity. The samples were used on the volunteers 2 to 6 hours after they were taken from the patients.
The third series of experiments, a few months later on the same basis as the first, gave some different results:
Many more people fell ill. Even during the 5 days after the group was brought together before the experiments started, 12 people had already become ill with tonsillitis. One of them was suspected to have contracted the flu and was excluded from further experiments.

Over the course of the experiments, another 8 volunteers contracted tonsillitis and 3 the flu, one of which was questionable. This was sufficient for the researchers to conclude that flu can be passed through the excretion of patients from the airways. Mission accomplished.

My critical comments, and alternative explanations according to the German New Medicine:

To show how much effort has been put in all those experiments to get to those 3 flu cases, I made a calculation. I counted the number of times that the excretion of one patient with flu has been brought into contact with one volunteer. For example, if they put snot of 4 patients together and put them in the eyes of 10 volunteers, I would count that as 40. The total nummer I counted was 434. Even if I believed in viruses that would make me wonder.

It is clear that the researchers already assumed that the disease could be transmitted through substances from patients, the only question was how. Nevertheless, they still had a fairly scientific attitude that you hardly see today. While viruses today can cause many different diseases and today, for example, COVID19 is diagnosed based on many different symptoms, in this study they really tried to make sure that the volunteers really had the flu and no other diseases. But because other possible causes were not taken into account and no control groups were used the value of the experiments is limited. Some of the hypotheses they needed to explain their findings contradict current views. To explain the total lack of infections in the second series of experiments, it was thought that the virus could survive less than two hours outside the patient. Today people laugh at this, even claiming to have reconstructed the virus 87 years later from a patient of 1918 (wikipedia). The hypothesis that the volunteers from the first series would have become immune without showing symptoms also seems to be contrary to current views.

If we try to broaden our view and see if the experiments can shed some light on the real causes of diseases, we are somewhat limited by the information that was recorded. Very little is known about other possible factors such as contact with food, chemicals, insects, the history and the experience of the volunteers. We can make the best estimate of the latter and this is also what is most important for the German New Medicine.

It is striking that in the third series of experiments so many diseases were reported before the experiments started. I imagine that just makes the atmosphere completely different. In an experiment in this series that is well described (the writer clearly felt sorry), 4 volunteers were transported to a prison to be infected there through the nose and through a glass of milk. It was a tiring journey of 130 miles (209 km) by boat and car where they were completely numb and only "back home" after midnight. The contaminated milk was the only food they received during a 24-hour period. That seems sufficient to cause a biological conflict. 2 out of 4 developed tonsillitis afterwards.

One of the main criteria for diagnosing flu was coughing. According to the GNM, this can occur in the healing phase of, among other things, a territorial fear conflict, a fear of terror conflict, a fear of death conflict ... To explain the dramatic difference between the first two series of experiments and the third my hypothesis is that volunteers in the third series had more fear of getting sick. It is known that during WW1 the belligerents, including the United States, are known to have suppressed information about the flu in their country. The first two experiments happened just at the end of the war and it is to be expected that this censorship did not stop immediately. In the third series of experiments, it is more likely that the volunteers and their supervisors had received much more information about the flu and the number of people who died from it. There had been many deaths, especially in October and November 1918. It is also likely that they were aware that the camp boss had died of the flu at the end of the first series of experiments. So this could explain why there were some cases of flu in the third series and also why there were many more tonsillitis (not wanting / being able to swallow conflict).

On the English version of Wikipedia I came across an interesting theory why so many people died from this flu. According to this paper, which is available for free at https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441, an overdose of aspirin can lead to hyperventilation and respiratory arrest, among other things. Starting in September 1918, starting in the military, the United States began to make recommendations to treat influenza with aspirin at doses now believed to be toxic. This is just prior to the months of most deaths. The reason why the mortality rate in children was lower can be explained by the fact that aspirin was not recommended for them. The volunteers who developed the flu were (fortunately) not treated and quickly recovered. These are still hypotheses, but there may be some lessons to be learned here, aren't they?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by simonshack » Mon May 04, 2020 8:52 pm

*


DR MAURICE HILLEMAN - AND HIS VACCINES AGAINST "UNDETECTABLE VIRUSES"

From Wikipedia:

"Maurice Ralph Hilleman (August 30, 1919 – April 11, 2005) was an American microbiologist who specialized in vaccinology and developed over 40 vaccines, an unparalleled record of productivity. Of the 14 vaccines routinely recommended in current vaccine schedules, he developed eight: those for measles, mumps, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, chickenpox, meningitis, pneumonia and Haemophilus influenzae bacteria. He also played a role in the discovery of the cold-producing adenoviruses, the hepatitis viruses, and the potentially cancer-causing virus SV40." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Hilleman

Image

I think that I'll just ask you to watch this video for now - and to peruse the below links.
Personally, I had never heard of this Dr Hilleman - so I need more time to look into this...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHyDFRDktbU

"MERCK’S DR. MAURICE HILLEMAN HIDDEN CONFESSION OF STARTING THE HIV VIRUS IN HUMANS AND PUTTING CANCER IN VACCINES" https://healingoracle.ch/2019/11/21/mer ... nfessions/


"Is there a role for SV40 in human cancer?" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db= ... h=16963733


EDIT TO CLARIFY: I am certainly not under the impression that Hilleman was some sort of whistleblower - quite the contrary, I find him extremely creepy!

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Wed May 06, 2020 5:42 am

Dr. Hilleman still talks as though 'viruses' exist and that vaccinations contain so-called 'dead' viruses (as opposed to 'live' viruses). I dispute this. Also, if there are no 'germs' or 'viruses' there is no need for any 'immune' system, which is yet another scam linked to 'viruses' etc.

Keeping any animals in captivity (including humans) is bound to cause severe stress and other factors, it doesn't matter what those factors are. People will react in different ways, simply because we are all different (place of abode, sex, age, physical size and so on).

When one talks about introducing 'cancer' into animals via 'vaccination', one is talking about the (literal) stabbing of subjects and injecting them with foreign matter (whatever that is) which the body attempts to rid itself from as best it can and as soon as it can..

If one has any knowledge of Dr. Hamer's work on 'cancer' (much of which I have spoken in the past), they will realise that it is the stabbing which causes a trauma (which would vary according to the age, health, sex and so on of the recipient of the stabbing). This is not 'rocket science' as they say. As Basil Fawlty would say: 'It's stating the bleedin' obvious.'

How anyone can stab an innocent child (or anyone else, for that matter) with such tools as needles, let alone filling them with poisonous material, is beyond me.

Be well.

patrix
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by patrix » Wed May 06, 2020 6:46 am

I agree. This is "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon" type of disinfo, implying pathogenic viruses exist.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Wed May 06, 2020 7:17 am

WHAT IS A ‘VIRUS’?

This post may seem inordinately long but I make no apologies for it because I think it essential to explore the notion of ‘viruses’ as entities which might help or hinder biological forms or all kinds.

I have reproduced the following article from the link below, which you can explore for yourselves.

The article is in bold type and my questions and comments in standard type-face and brackets ().
Definitions are marked between […] and in italics.

This is a serious piece of work, although it must inevitably devolve into satire, no apologies…

The link to the original is (without the graphic of an alleged virus, (the one used to denote the alleged Corona virus (Covid-19)):

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158179

WHAT IS A ‘VIRUS’?

Viruses are microscopic organisms (please explain) that exist almost (please explain) everywhere on earth.

They can infect
[Infection:

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main ... key=12923

The invasion and multiplication of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites that are not normally present within the body. An infection may cause no symptoms and be subclinical, or it may cause symptoms and be clinically apparent. An infection may remain localized, or it may spread through the blood or lymphatic vessels to become systemic (bodywide). Microorganisms that live naturally in the body are not considered infections. For example, bacteria that normally live within the mouth and intestine are not infections. animals, plants, fungi, and even bacteria.] animals, plants, fungi, and even bacteria.

Sometimes a virus can cause a disease
(please explain ‘disease’) so deadly that it is fatal. Other viral infections trigger no noticeable reaction.

A virus may also have one effect on one type of organism, but a different effect on another. This explains how a virus that affects a cat may not affect a dog.

Viruses vary in complexity
. (How?) They consist of genetic material, RNA or DNA, surrounded by a coat of protein, lipid (fat), or glycoprotein. (Please explain these terms in detail with references to their authenticity) Viruses cannot replicate without a host, so they are classified as parasitic.

They are considered the most abundant biological entity on the planet.
(By whom? Please provide relevant sources as to the voracity of this statement.)

Fast facts on viruses (Please provide in detail those that are not ‘facts’.)

Viruses are living (please explain ‘living organisms’) that cannot replicate without a host cell. (Which precludes the ‘fact’ that the DNA/RNA theory is not held in high esteem.)
They are considered the most abundant biological entity on the planet. (By whom?)
Diseases caused by viruses include rabies, herpes, and Ebola. (Please explain diseases, again.)
There is no cure for a virus (Why?), but vaccination can prevent them from spreading. (How can ‘vaccination’ (please explain), which is an unnatural imposition on any living bio-organism possibly do any ‘good’ whatsoever, since the body will automatically reject such an imposition and cause untold stress in the meantime?)

What are viruses?

Almost every ecosystem
(?) on Earth contains viruses (What is your proof?).

Before entering a cell (?), viruses exist in a form known as virions. (Really? Please explain.)

During this phase, they are roughly one-hundredth the size of a bacterium (please explain in detail a ‘bacterium’) and consist of two or three distinct parts (Oh! My word, only two or three):

genetic material, either DNA or RNA
(not conclusively agreed that it exists, please provide repeatable proof)
a protein coat, or capsid, which protects the genetic information (I am lost here unless you can explain a protein coat, capsid or genetic information).
a lipid envelope is sometimes present around the protein coat when the virus is outside of the cell (why is that? What is a lipid? How does all this work in real life?)

Viruses do not contain a ribosome (which is what, precisely?) so they cannot make proteins. This makes them totally dependent on their host. They are the only type of microorganism that cannot reproduce without a host cell.

After contacting a host cell,
(by cell-phone?) a virus will insert genetic material (what ‘genetic’ material?) into the host and take over that host’s functions (why would it do that?).

After infecting the cell, the virus continues to reproduce, (I was told that ‘viruses’ could not reproduce) but it produces more viral protein and genetic material instead of the usual cellular products (why on earth would it do that? Does it also have a brain and reasoning or unreasoning powers?).

It is this process that earns viruses the classification of parasite.

Viruses have different shapes and sizes, and they can be categorized by their shapes.

These may be:

Helical: The tobacco mosaic virus has a helix shape.
Icosahedral, near-spherical viruses: Most animal viruses are like this.
Envelope: Some viruses cover themselves with a modified section of cell membrane, creating a protective lipid envelope. These include the influenza virus and HIV.
(How do you come by all this?)

Other shapes are possible, including nonstandard shapes that combine both helical and icosahedral forms. (How can one make such a statement without providing exact methods of visible evidence?)


READER SURVEY
Help us answer your questions about Covid-19
(You cannot, unless you can prove without doubt that such a thing exists in reality.)

Share your questions and concerns with MNT so we can provide helpful information for you. (You could not answer them in any meaningful way.)


Viruses do not leave fossil remains, so they are difficult to trace through time. (Possibly they do not exist, like dinosaurs.) Molecular techniques (which precisely are?) are used to compare the DNA and RNA of viruses and find out more about where they come from. (An incredibly insane mind?)

Three competing theories try to explain the origin of viruses. (Possibly four if you discount their validity.)

Regressive, or reduction hypothesis: Viruses started as independent organisms that became parasites. (Really? How could you possibly know this?) Over time, they shed genes that did not help them parasitize, and they became entirely dependent on the cells they inhabit. (Please, please! My credibility is reaching its limits!)
Progressive, or escape hypothesis: Viruses evolved from sections of DNA or RNA that “escaped” from the genes of larger organisms. (You mean escaped from the Alcatraz of Mother Nature! How dare they!) In this way, they gained the ability to become independent and move between cells. (If they need a host cell to exist, how exactly do the ‘move between cells?)
Virus-first hypothesis: Viruses evolved from complex molecules of nucleic acid (?) and proteins (?) either before or at the same time as the first cells appeared on Earth, billions of years ago. (Such is speculation!)

Transmission

A virus exists only to reproduce. (I believe it has been said that ‘viruses’ cannot reproduce which is why they have to be ‘cultivated’ to even find out that there are any.) When it reproduces, its offspring spread (exactly how? This is supposed to be a ‘scientific’ piece and offspring? Do they have babies?) to new cells and new hosts.
The makeup of a virus affects its ability to spread.
(How, exactly? Lipstick? Face-powder? Gender re-assignment?)

Viruses may transmit from person to person, and from mother to child during pregnancy or delivery. (Prove it.)

They can spread through:

touch
exchanges of saliva, coughing, or sneezing
sexual contact
contaminated food or water
insects that carry them from one person to another


(Please explain these five notions in detail. If these ‘viruses’ live in the ‘cells’ of biological bodies, how are they able to get themselves out of the body to ‘infect’ other people or species when outside the ‘host’ they are unable to exist? Am I missing something here?)

Some viruses can live on an object for some time (Are there any studies to prove this?), so if a person touches an item with the virus on their hands, the next person can pick up that virus by touching the same object. The object is known as a fomite [definition: objects or materials which are likely to carry infection, such as clothes, utensils, and furniture..]

As the virus replicates in the body (How, for goodness sake? And forget the DNA/RNA nonsense.), it starts to affect the host. After a period known as the incubation period (please explain), symptoms may start to show.

What happens if viruses change?
(From what to what?)

When a virus spreads, it can pick up some of its host’s DNA and take it to another cell or organism. (Please explain the process.)

If the virus enters the host’s DNA, (explain D.N.A.) it can affect the wider genome (?) by moving around a chromosome or to a new chromosome. (?? Please explain)

This can have long-term effects on a person. In humans, it may (? How?) explain the development of hemophilia and muscular dystrophy.

This interaction with host DNA
(Please explain what exactly, you mean.) can also cause viruses to change.

Some viruses only affect one type of being, say, birds.
(How do you know that? What verifiable evidence will convince me?) If a virus that normally affects birds does by chance enter a human, and if it picks up some human DNA, this can produce a new type of virus that may be more likely to affect humans in future. (Surely this is pure speculation.)

This is why scientists are concerned about rare (Rare? On what do you define ‘rare’?) viruses that spread from animals to people.

Viral diseases

Viruses cause many human diseases.
(Really? How do you define ‘diseases’?)

These include:

smallpox
the common cold and different types of flu
measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, and shingles
hepatitis
herpes and cold sores
polio
rabies
Ebola and Hanta fever
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
dengue fever, Zika, and Epstein-Barr


(Are these really ‘diseases’ or made up for ulterior purposes?)

Some viruses, such as the human papilloma virus (HPV), can lead to cancer. (Please define ‘cancer’.)

What are friendly viruses? (? I thought ‘viruses’ we ‘bad’ for us. How come some are ‘friendly’ to us? How is it possible to detect the ‘friend’ from the ‘enemy’?)

Just as there are friendly bacteria (Explain ‘bacteria’.) that exist in our intestines and help us digest food, humans may also carry friendly viruses that help protect against dangerous bacteria, including Escherichia coli (E. Coli). (So now we have ‘friendly bacteria’ and ‘enemy bacteria’. How are we to suppose the difference and by what methods do we distinguish between the two?)

Combating viruses (The ‘war’ words of medicine rear their ugly head.)

The body defends itself through the deployment of T-cells, which attack the virus. (Oh, dear, please explain ‘T-cells’ being ‘deployed’.)

When the body’s immune system (How come the body has an ‘immune’ system? What is an immune system and why would we have one in the first place?) detects (what sort of sleuth can detect a virus, even if it exists? Where are Holmes and Watson?) it starts to respond, to enable cells to survive the attack. (The mind boggles.)

A process called RNA interference breaks down the viral genetic material. (Could you explain that, please.)

The immune system produces special antibodies that can bind to viruses, making them non-infectious. The body sends T cells to destroy the virus. (Send in the cavalry!)

Most viral infections trigger (Sorry! The cavalry don’t have guns, we need armed troops.) a protective response from the immune system, but viruses such as HIV and neurotropic viruses have ways of evading (How?) the immune system’s defenses.

Neurotropic viruses infect nerve cells. They are responsible for diseases such as polio, rabies, mumps, and measles.
(Really?)

They can affect the structure of the central nervous system (CNS) with delayed and progressive effects that can be severe.

(This whole thing gets worse…)

Treatment and drugs

Bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics, but viral infections require either vaccinations to prevent them in the first place or antiviral drugs to treat them.

Sometimes, the only possible treatment is to provide symptom relief.

Antiviral drugs have been developed largely in response to the AIDS pandemic. These drugs do not destroy the pathogen, but they inhibit their development and slow down the progress of the disease.

Antivirals are also available to treat infection with the herpes simplex virus, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, shingles, and chicken pox.

Vaccines

Vaccinations are generally the cheapest and most effective way to prevent viruses. Some vaccines have succeeded in eliminating diseases, such as smallpox.
Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent viruses.

(This whole section beggars belief.)

Virus vaccinations consist of:

a weakened form of the virus
(Beaten up in the centrifuge, most likely.)
viral proteins called antigens, which stimulate the body to form antibodies that will fight off future infections with the same virus (It’s a good job our bodies have some military training.)
live-attenuated viruses, such as immunization for poliomyelitis (I would still like to know how all this is accomplished.)

Live-attenuated vaccines carry the risk of causing the original disease in people with weak immune systems. (Not enough military training?)

Currently, vaccinations exist for polio, measles, mumps, and rubella, among others. Widespread use of these vaccines has reduced their prevalence dramatically. (We are heading for some bovine excrement, here.)

Two doses of the measles vaccine, for example, offer 97 percent protection against this disease.
The measles vaccine has achieved a 99-percent reduction in the incidence of measles in the United States (U.S.). If there is an outbreak, it usually affects people who are not vaccinated.
(Oh, dear, really? Evidence?)

Some people choose not to vaccinate their children, and because most people around them do vaccinate, the risk of getting measles is low. (Drivel.)

However, if fewer than 92 to 95 percent of people receive the vaccine, a community can lose its “herd immunity,” and an outbreak can occur. The risk of disease increases dramatically. (We are all bovines now.)

In the words of the CDC:

“Antivaxxers help breathe new life into old diseases.”

This can also affect vulnerable people who are unable to receive the vaccine for some reason, such as a compromised
(?) immune system.

Viral infections usually resolve without treatment, but medication can relieve symptoms such as pain, fever, and cough. (My emphasis)

Swine FluBiology / BiochemistryFlu / Cold / SARSInfectious Diseases / Bacteria / Viruses

12 sourcescollapsed

(I have collapsed due to fatigue at responding to this absolute drivel. There are so many unanswered questions that will never be answered for fear of losing any credibility of any ‘medical’ profession or ‘professionals’.)

References (I have left these as are.)

CDC: With low vaccine rates, some areas risk losing herd immunity. (2014, October 21)
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing ... d-immunity
DNA disruptor. (n.d.)
http://www.microbeworld.org/types-of-mi ... -disrupter
Gelderblom, H. R. (1996). Chapter 41: Structure and classification of viruses
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8174/
Koonina, E.V., Doljab, V. V., & Krupovic, M. (2015, May). Origins and evolution of viruses of eukaryotes: The ultimate modularity. Virology 479-480, 2–25
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2215000859
Koyamaa, S., Ishiia, K. J., Cobana, C., & Akiraa, S. (2008, September). Innate immune response to viral infection. Cytokine, 336–341
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 6608002214
Ludlow, M., Kortekaas, J., Herden, C., Hoffmann, B., Tappe, D., Trebst, C. ... Osterhaus, E. (2015, December 10). Neurotropic virus infections as the cause of immediate and delayed neuropathology. Acta Neuropathologica 131, 159–184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4713712/
Measles vaccination. (2017, February 13)
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
The smallpox eradication programme. (2010, May)
http://www.who.int/features/2010/smallpox/en/
Types of vaccines. (2017, May 11)
https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types/index.html#live
Viruses. (n.d.)
http://www.microbeworld.org/types-of-microbes/viruses
Wessner, D. R. (2010). The Origins of Viruses. Nature Education 39, 37
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag ... s-14398218
Yong, E. (2013, May 20). Viruses in the gut protect from infection. Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/viruses-in-t ... on-1.13023

Medically reviewed by University of Illinois on May 30, 2017 — Written by Peter Crosta
Latest news

Parkinson’s: Autoimmune attack may start years before diagnosis
COVID-19 live updates: Total number of cases passes 3.5 million
The importance of regulating mood with activities during lockdown
Review says MMR vaccine is effective, does not cause autism

Raw dog food contains drug resistant bacteria, study finds.
************************************************************************************

Be well.
Sharpstuff

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu May 07, 2020 2:49 am

Sharpstuff,

Can you explain about plant viruses? Does the Tobacco Mosaic Virus exist? Are there any other possible explanations as to what causes that disease in plants?

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Thu May 07, 2020 7:49 am

Dear Anonjedi2,

Anonjedi2 wrote:
Sharpstuff,

Can you explain about plant viruses? Does the Tobacco Mosaic Virus exist? Are there any other possible explanations as to what causes that disease in plants?
Tobacco Mosaic Virus

Interesting questions.

The following link gives some fairly straight forward information.

https://www.planetnatural.com/pest-prob ... aic-virus/

What was interesting was this remark: 'Plant viruses can be difficult to detect as symptoms look similar to many nutrient deficiencies and vary depending on the age of the plant when infection occurs.'

I can find little or nothing much about locations and so forth of plants etc. but it remains to be seen how deficient the various locations of the 'disease' are of nutrients, the use of pasticides, proper rotation of crops, etc. I know nothing about this at all. What strikes me is that, like human 'diseases' we need to look first at the terrain and its management. Since it was 1930 before the alleged 'virus' was named as such, one might wonder how such a 'disease' was managed without the notion of a 'virus' and I haven't yet explored the history of the origination of the term or concept of a 'virus' was made (invented?).

Given that, I looked at this article from our old fiend Wickipaedia (it does has its uses!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_mosaic_virus

Disregarding, the article itself, I looked down the references and found this interesting study.

Reference (19):

http://acgpubs.org/doc/2018073102061249 ... 10-178.pdf

I am not sure if this helps.

Be well.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu May 07, 2020 8:28 pm

Thank you, shaprstuff. Your expertise in this area is much appreciated at this time.

In other news, David Crowe's latest Infectious Myth Podcast is up. His guest is Dr. Andrew Kaufman whom I posted about earlier in this thread. Dr. Kaufman has very reasonable, down-to-earth theories about what these so-called "viruses" might be.

https://s138.podbean.com/pb/cb5d98b3775 ... f3a231ef9f

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Sat May 09, 2020 3:51 pm

Dr. Nancy Turner Banks discusses the questions about whether or not Infectious / Pathogenic Viruses exit...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHBLMTrRNZE

...and a shorter, 15 minute video in which she examines the legitimacy of traditional, "allopathic" medicine.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqg8ztc63v8

patrix
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by patrix » Sun May 17, 2020 3:08 pm

An excellent lecture by Tom Cowan MD on the fact that viruses/bacteria have never been proven to cause disease. We are currently witnessing the fall of the Copernican model within medicine. :o


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7sF9tMJNhY

alovas1980
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Mon May 18, 2020 12:22 pm

I found this very interesting article about: „Mass Psychogenic Illness” by Timothy F. Jones, M.D. from Dec 15, 2000.
This explains a lot of things “experts” claim to be caused by viruses.
Mass Psychogenic Illness: Role of the Individual Physician

Mass psychogenic illness is characterized by symptoms, occurring among a group of persons with shared beliefs regarding those symptoms, that suggest organic illness but have no identifiable environmental cause and little clinical or laboratory evidence of disease.

Symptoms often follow an environmental trigger or illness in an index case. They can spread rapidly by apparent visual transmission, may be aggravated by a prominent emergency or media response, and frequently resolve after patients are separated from each other and removed from the environment in which the outbreak began[.

Mass psychogenic illness involves people with real symptoms that are often triggered by misunderstood or false information. Unfortunately, by the time many outbreaks are recognized as psychogenic illness, they have had a devastating effect on the communities and individuals involved.

Mass psychogenic illness, also referred to as mass hysteria, has been described for more than 600 years in a variety of cultures and settings but is seldom addressed during medical training. It can be difficult to differentiate from bioterrorism, rapidly spreading infection or acute toxic exposure. Epidemics of psychogenic illness often attract substantial media attention and may have profound public health, social and economic repercussions. Appropriate recognition of and response to such incidents by physicians can have a substantial impact on the outcome.

Symptoms commonly described in mass psychogenic illness are
  • Headache
  • Dizziness or light-headedness
  • Nausea
  • Abdominal cramps or pain
  • Cough
  • Fatigue, drowsiness or weakness
  • Sore or burning throat
  • Hyperventilation or difficulty breathing
  • Watery or irritated eyes
  • Chest tightness/chest pain
  • Inability to concentrate/trouble thinking
  • Vomiting
  • Tingling, numbness or paralysis
  • Anxiety or nervousness
  • Diarrhea
  • Trouble with vision
  • Rash
  • Loss of consciousness/syncope
  • Itching
...
Common Characteristics of Mass Psychogenic Illness
  • Often occurs after exposure to an environmental trigger (e.g., odor, emergency response, rumor, reported toxin, etc.).
  • Females affected disproportionately more often than males.
  • Adolescents and children affected.
  • Patients with psychologic or physical stress affected.
  • Symptoms spread and resolve rapidly.
  • Symptoms inconsistent with a single biologic etiology.
  • Symptoms may include hyperventilation or syncope.
  • Symptoms associated with minimal physical or laboratory findings.
  • Symptoms spread by “line-of-sight” transmission (i.e., seeing or hearing of another ill person causes symptoms).
  • Illness may recur with return to environment of initial outbreak.
  • Illness may escalate with vigorous or prolonged emergency or media response.

Recommended Approach to Patients with Mass Psychogenic Illness
  • Attempt to separate persons with illness associated with the outbreak.
  • Promptly perform physical examination and basic laboratory testing sufficient to exclude serious acute illness.
  • Monitor and provide oxygen as necessary for hyperventilation.
  • Minimize unnecessary exposure to medical procedures, emergency personnel, media or other potential anxiety-stimulating situations.
  • Notify public health authorities of apparent outbreak.
  • Openly communicate with physicians caring for other patients.
  • Promptly communicate results of laboratory and environmental testing to patients.
  • While maintaining confidentiality, explain that other people are experiencing similar symptoms and improving without complications.
  • Remind patients that rumors and reports of ”suspected causes” are not equivalent to confirmed results.
  • Acknowledge that symptoms experienced by the patient are real.
  • Explain potential contribution of anxiety to the patient's symptoms.
  • Reassure patient that long-term sequelae from current illness are not expected.
  • As appropriate, reassure patient that thorough clinical, epidemiologic and environmental investigations have identified no toxic cause for the outbreak or reason for further concern.
...
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/1215/p2649.html

It seems creating an epidemic/pandemic can be done by the following steps:

So, find a group of very ill people having similar symptoms (clustering), many of their symptoms should be common with symptoms of mass psychogenic illness. Severity doesn’t matter. Find some particles can be found in every person, preferably something which is necessary for fighting an illness, so ill people will have more of them. The particle should be very small, so nobody can verify it. Create a random test. Tell everyone, there is a virus epidemic, do everything possible to create more and more hysteria. Do the opposite of everything recommended to patients with mass psychogenic illness. Then give as much toxins as possible to people with symptoms. The more dangerous the toxic medications the better. Preferably choose toxins which causes the same symptoms caused by the alleged virus. Put as much people as possibly on forced mechanical ventilation. When they die blame it on the virus. Create more hysteria. Repeat.

rusty
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Mon May 18, 2020 7:34 pm

Interesting that you bring this up in this thread, thanks! You may have heard about the Tanganyika laughter epidemic in 1962
The Tanganyika laughter epidemic of 1962 was an outbreak of mass hysteria – or mass psychogenic illness (MPI) – rumored to have occurred in or near the village of Kashasha on the western coast of Lake Victoria in Tanganyika (which, once united wich Zanzibar, became the modern nation of Tanzania) near the border with Uganda.

The laughter epidemic began on January 30, 1962, at a mission-run boarding school for girls in Kashasha. It started with three girls and spread throughout the school, affecting 95 of the 159 pupils, aged 12–18. Symptoms lasted from a few hours to 16 days. The teaching staff were unaffected and reported that students were unable to concentrate on their lessons. The school closed on March 18.

The epidemic spread to Nshamba, a village where several of the girls lived. In April and May, 217 mostly young villagers had laughing attacks. The Kashasha school reopened on May 21, and reclosed at the end of June. Earlier that month, the laughing epidemic spread to Ramashenye girls' middle school, near Bukoba, affecting 48 girls.

The Kashasha school was sued for allowing the children and their parents to transmit it to the surrounding area. Other schools, Kashasha itself, and another village were affected to some degree.[4] Eighteen months after it started, the phenomenon died off. The laughter reports were widely accompanied by descriptions of fainting, flatulence, respiratory problems, rashes, crying and screaming. In all, 14 schools were shut down and 1000 people were affected.
We can be happy they did not have PCR back in 1962. Else we surely would have been blessed with the new and almost deadly virus RIDICULUS-62 :P

Post Reply