Listen now | Today I tackle a topic I get asked a lot of questions about, mostly because I have in the past (and to this day) question the mainstream paradigm surrounding viruses. Discussion Outline: Why talk about Viruses?
That's a very interesting take. I don't know if the no-virus crowd is a psy-op or not but they are right to point out inconsistencies in virology which really seems to be a pseudoscience. You confirmed my suspicion that the virus vs no-virus debate is beside the point as the terrain and germ theory are not contrary. Your redefinition of virus as an agent transferring information is not far from their claim that disease is caused by toxins in environment. I was and still am sympathetic to no-virus crowd views but I was also perplexed that they are so hard-wired to see the terrain and germs as excluding one another. I couldn't see it despite them being right about falsity of the current form of germ theory. So I was inclined to think I am missing something.
Another interesting piece to the puzzle is how small amount is necessary to cause the body freak out. Again that bypasses one of their arguments that virologist never find enough viruses in the host to make him really sick.
The last part about preventing spreading disease also made me think. Viruses are like heresies if your account is right. Despite popular opinion that the Church just burned the carrier at stake (although if it really is a propaganda piece that might be a just punishment for certain individuals) heresies were mainly fought by truth. I don't know what truth is in the realm of biology but vaccines as watered-down or somehow less potent virus can be compared to fighting big heresy with small heresy which is absurd.
they simply conveying information, and the host does the rest.
the host can amplify the message, ignore the message (some people are not vulnerable and/or develop no measurable immune response), recognize and know what to do with message - ie. do I express it now? keep it for later?
sometimes the host integrates the message into its genome - thats why a large proportion of our genome are considered to be viral
In combination with what I said in the monologue, and the reply we can account for how this information is conveyed to our cellular machinery.
When in doubt, just think of how viral information spreads - and there is usually an almost identical analogous path by which biological information spreads.
Right away
I feel terrible for recent memes
Oh boy
Schooled again
Thought it was a not so novel virus.
The four (there’s more now) common cold corona viruses are HKU1 OC43 NL63 229E
It most resembled the ones that are beta?
Always forget
But
HKU1 and OC43 ?
NL63 is beta too but not as close resemblance.
And a percentage of people already had cross reactive immunity most likely from as kids.
And so
They took a common cold coronavirus and messed around with it in a lab
So
The commoncold corona viruses were the templates?
I am so very much enjoying listening to you speak of viruses.
The difference in reading something, versus listening, and you speak so very well, the information is flowing.
Not done listening yet.
Vesicular Trafficking
Virus - infectious agent
that sounds so very cool.
A virus is a piece of biologic information.
Gotta go,
You are describing a technical statement word by word in the audio tape now.
Thank-You
That's a very interesting take. I don't know if the no-virus crowd is a psy-op or not but they are right to point out inconsistencies in virology which really seems to be a pseudoscience. You confirmed my suspicion that the virus vs no-virus debate is beside the point as the terrain and germ theory are not contrary. Your redefinition of virus as an agent transferring information is not far from their claim that disease is caused by toxins in environment. I was and still am sympathetic to no-virus crowd views but I was also perplexed that they are so hard-wired to see the terrain and germs as excluding one another. I couldn't see it despite them being right about falsity of the current form of germ theory. So I was inclined to think I am missing something.
Another interesting piece to the puzzle is how small amount is necessary to cause the body freak out. Again that bypasses one of their arguments that virologist never find enough viruses in the host to make him really sick.
The last part about preventing spreading disease also made me think. Viruses are like heresies if your account is right. Despite popular opinion that the Church just burned the carrier at stake (although if it really is a propaganda piece that might be a just punishment for certain individuals) heresies were mainly fought by truth. I don't know what truth is in the realm of biology but vaccines as watered-down or somehow less potent virus can be compared to fighting big heresy with small heresy which is absurd.
I have to go through the rest of your work here.
So many thoughts, yet so little ability (at this moment) to articulate them. I have to listen to this one again when I’m sitting at my desk….
Over waffle… this person seems to be in love … with his voice.. what would he say to those who say virus do not exist?
I address this very question, and included it in the outline.
I'm flattered that you like my voice.
Nobody wants to entertain this possibility.Ogh, well.
they simply conveying information, and the host does the rest.
the host can amplify the message, ignore the message (some people are not vulnerable and/or develop no measurable immune response), recognize and know what to do with message - ie. do I express it now? keep it for later?
sometimes the host integrates the message into its genome - thats why a large proportion of our genome are considered to be viral
I did answer the question.
In combination with what I said in the monologue, and the reply we can account for how this information is conveyed to our cellular machinery.
When in doubt, just think of how viral information spreads - and there is usually an almost identical analogous path by which biological information spreads.