9 Comments
User's avatar
rpt's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Carol's avatar

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….

Expand full comment
Jomico's avatar

Over waffle… this person seems to be in love … with his voice.. what would he say to those who say virus do not exist?

Expand full comment
Remnant MD's avatar

I address this very question, and included it in the outline.

I'm flattered that you like my voice.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 24
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Remnant MD's avatar

Nobody wants to entertain this possibility.Ogh, well.

Expand full comment
Tomas Hull's avatar

Most agree viruses are not alive-they are inanimate. So, how do they do what they are claimed to do; i.e. infect, steal the host’s cell machinery, replicate, spread and then “decide” whether to kill the host or not?

Expand full comment
Remnant MD's avatar

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

Expand full comment
Tomas Hull's avatar

You didn't answer my question. I'm talking about the mechanism that so far only animate particles, like bacteria, have been observed to perform. Simply put, in order for the dead particles to "convey information" they would have to become animate or alive. So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate how this process would work. If you do, the Nobel Prize is surely awaiting you...

Expand full comment
Remnant MD's avatar

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.

Expand full comment