Regarding the 1972 study in Claim 3...I understand you are citing this to point out that a nearly pure virus sample has been taken directly from a human host in the past, but the researchers in the paper assert they caused gastroenteritis by passing Norovirus from one person to another. I would expect you to disagree with this conclusion based on your alignment with Terrain Theory, or have you modified your position on this upon further research? Thanks.
I have long held that viruses, when introduced in certain ways, such as vaccinations, oncolytic vaccines, orally, etc., can indeed influence the body in various ways; both negatively and positively. Most negative effects from vaccinations are due to adjuvants and chemical stabilizers, with attenuated tissue being a secondary factor.
Initially, I maintained that attenuated RNA tissue from outside the body would not be fully recognized because RNA in this form is usually not identifiable by the body due to incompatibility of RNA 'keys'—while the body might indeed recognize it as a protein, the protein is not in its natural whole form, and thus, does not have RNA that is fully compatible with the body it enters. Therefore, it is merely treated by the innate immune system as a form of foreign debris that cannot be utilized or integrated by the body due to its incomplete form.
In a similar vein, viruses used in oncolytic cancer treatments employ modified viral RNA that is more compatible with an individual's cells. This enhances their ability to selectively infect and destroy cancer cells without influencing other cells. But in natural circumstances, with a general type of cells, viruses are primarily quite discriminate anyway.
Over time, it became more logical to me that the body functions as follows: when a whole viral protein containing RNA genomic blueprints for replication is introduced, the body's cells recognize the protein and "learn" how to replicate it if needed, subsequently producing more of it. Cells essentially say, "Oh! Now I know how to make that protein. I can use this for myself, so I will make more of it."
Ignoring this now at my stage of knowledge would disregard the evidence I have encountered. I am constantly expanding my knowledge and learning more about the body's nature. It would be unwise for me to have encountered new evidence and experiences and ignore it in favor of past theorems that were still incomplete at the time. That is the scientific process, after all.
Likewise, bacteria exhibit similar patterns; we successfully integrate bacteria or other microorganisms from external sources into our bodies. Most importantly, I have found that this process is harmonious in natural circumstances and is not the indiscriminate pathogenic or contagious disease-causing action often fearfully portrayed in media and society.
To answer the question more directly: viruses introduced orally would indeed make you sick if your cells were susceptible to that particular virus. In this case, norovirus primarily infects the cells lining the small intestine. This is primarily due to many toxic and susceptible cells normally present in the gastrointestinal tract in those who have years of toxin accumulation. Therefore, it makes sense to me that they were able to infect someone else with gastroenteritis virus.
Under normal conditions, no. Under artificial conditions, such as ingesting or injecting certain viruses, yes. However, is that process contagious? It seems highly improbable that a virus could bypass the body's highly protective membranes, including the immune system, and target specific cells, indiscriminately and pathogenically.
However, if man removes himself from the natural world for extended periods of time (generations) and reduces his relationship with bacteria, parasites, and viruses, eventually leading to the immune system being unable to analysis and recognize external entities easily, would it not stand to reason that such entities could cause imbalances or conflict due to them not being integrated with the bodily system? I surmise the answer to that is yes.
Furthermore, scientific literature indicates that viruses like influenza can manifest spontaneously in large geographically isolated populations, with outbreaks occurring within a few days of each other. This phenomenon shows, in part, that viruses are primarily environmentally induced and become active under certain environmental changes. I plan to address this study in an upcoming article.
It is important to distinguish between contagious and pathogenic. Pathogenic refers to the causation of disease, a concept with which I disagree with. There are conditions that are contagious: lice, fungus, yeast, and so forth, because they are living organisms that can feed off of a food source (like dead skin).
Viruses, if they were transmissible, are not indiscriminate, as has been proven in the science. Thus, I cannot call them contagious—they are highly specific and only infect certain types of cells, nor are they directly disease causing.
However, they do appear alongside disease, which gives the illusion that they cause disease. But as with all things in the body, there is a cause and effect, an action and reaction.
Regarding that picture of the things that were filtered out of the stool sample. How exactly do you know that those things were 'viruses'? Who knows what they are? You are just assuming they are 'viruses'.
""The 2% second human passage stool filtrate (8Fiia) used in these immune electron microscopy studies was derived from a stool specimen of a volunteer who developed gastroenteritis after oral administration of a stool filtrate derived from one of the two volunteers who became ill after receiving the original inoculum from the Norwalk outbreak (1, 11, 12). The 8FMa pool, which had been filtered through a 1,200- and a 450-nm membrane filter (Millipore Corp.) and prepared by previously described methods, was known to contain an infectious agent; it had induced gastroenteritis in 6 of 10 volunteers, but extensive attempts to recover or detect an etiological agent by conventional techniques were unsuccessful (11, 12; R. Dolin et al., unpublished studies). ""
Did they do any control experiments to see if the same particles could be obtained, by the same method, from 'uninfected' stool samples?
Or did they just 'assume' they wouldn't find them?
If you do not carry out proper control exeriments it's pseudoscience, not real science.
You're certainly entitled to believe in any conspiracy theory you choose, but I don't share your perspective. While I may have entertained such ideas in the past, my growing knowledge has led me to realize that many conspiracy theories often stem from fear and misinformation and are often false.
Suggesting that fields such as biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology are influenced by 'Rockefeller Medicine Men' reveals a misguided assumption that conflates these disciplines with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. In reality, such claims are inaccurate and fail to acknowledge the distinct complexities within each scientific field.
Lastly, what does your comment have to do with No-Virus, which is the topic of this article? Are you a No-Virus proponent?
I'm well aware of the origin of the term, but 'conspiracy theory' is still a legitimate term. You've presented numerous BELIEFS on irrelevant topics through a conspiratorial lens.
You still haven't answered my question. Are you a No-Virus proponent?
Medical science is distinct from virology and other scientific disciplines. While it draws upon various branches of science for validation and support, it remains a separate field. It is inaccurate to conflate the two as if they are the same.
You seem to believe that I lack understanding of the topics you reference. In reality, I am well-versed in them. However, none of these topics are directly pertinent to the study of viruses.
"The notion that it does not have to be entirely and completely isolated just does not pass the common basic smell test."
It actually makes perfect sense because microorganisms, and other biological entities, do not have to be completely pure to be studied—It is a fallacy to claim otherwise. You cannot name one instance where 100% purity is necessary, or even possible to achieve. The claim that viruses have never been isolated is unequivocally incorrect. This claim is the direct opposite of all scientific evidence and stems from a misinformed and ignorant perspective.
Regarding the 1972 study in Claim 3...I understand you are citing this to point out that a nearly pure virus sample has been taken directly from a human host in the past, but the researchers in the paper assert they caused gastroenteritis by passing Norovirus from one person to another. I would expect you to disagree with this conclusion based on your alignment with Terrain Theory, or have you modified your position on this upon further research? Thanks.
I have long held that viruses, when introduced in certain ways, such as vaccinations, oncolytic vaccines, orally, etc., can indeed influence the body in various ways; both negatively and positively. Most negative effects from vaccinations are due to adjuvants and chemical stabilizers, with attenuated tissue being a secondary factor.
Initially, I maintained that attenuated RNA tissue from outside the body would not be fully recognized because RNA in this form is usually not identifiable by the body due to incompatibility of RNA 'keys'—while the body might indeed recognize it as a protein, the protein is not in its natural whole form, and thus, does not have RNA that is fully compatible with the body it enters. Therefore, it is merely treated by the innate immune system as a form of foreign debris that cannot be utilized or integrated by the body due to its incomplete form.
In a similar vein, viruses used in oncolytic cancer treatments employ modified viral RNA that is more compatible with an individual's cells. This enhances their ability to selectively infect and destroy cancer cells without influencing other cells. But in natural circumstances, with a general type of cells, viruses are primarily quite discriminate anyway.
Over time, it became more logical to me that the body functions as follows: when a whole viral protein containing RNA genomic blueprints for replication is introduced, the body's cells recognize the protein and "learn" how to replicate it if needed, subsequently producing more of it. Cells essentially say, "Oh! Now I know how to make that protein. I can use this for myself, so I will make more of it."
Ignoring this now at my stage of knowledge would disregard the evidence I have encountered. I am constantly expanding my knowledge and learning more about the body's nature. It would be unwise for me to have encountered new evidence and experiences and ignore it in favor of past theorems that were still incomplete at the time. That is the scientific process, after all.
Likewise, bacteria exhibit similar patterns; we successfully integrate bacteria or other microorganisms from external sources into our bodies. Most importantly, I have found that this process is harmonious in natural circumstances and is not the indiscriminate pathogenic or contagious disease-causing action often fearfully portrayed in media and society.
To answer the question more directly: viruses introduced orally would indeed make you sick if your cells were susceptible to that particular virus. In this case, norovirus primarily infects the cells lining the small intestine. This is primarily due to many toxic and susceptible cells normally present in the gastrointestinal tract in those who have years of toxin accumulation. Therefore, it makes sense to me that they were able to infect someone else with gastroenteritis virus.
It sounds like you're saying viruses are sometimes contagious and pathogenic, no?
Under normal conditions, no. Under artificial conditions, such as ingesting or injecting certain viruses, yes. However, is that process contagious? It seems highly improbable that a virus could bypass the body's highly protective membranes, including the immune system, and target specific cells, indiscriminately and pathogenically.
However, if man removes himself from the natural world for extended periods of time (generations) and reduces his relationship with bacteria, parasites, and viruses, eventually leading to the immune system being unable to analysis and recognize external entities easily, would it not stand to reason that such entities could cause imbalances or conflict due to them not being integrated with the bodily system? I surmise the answer to that is yes.
Furthermore, scientific literature indicates that viruses like influenza can manifest spontaneously in large geographically isolated populations, with outbreaks occurring within a few days of each other. This phenomenon shows, in part, that viruses are primarily environmentally induced and become active under certain environmental changes. I plan to address this study in an upcoming article.
It is important to distinguish between contagious and pathogenic. Pathogenic refers to the causation of disease, a concept with which I disagree with. There are conditions that are contagious: lice, fungus, yeast, and so forth, because they are living organisms that can feed off of a food source (like dead skin).
Viruses, if they were transmissible, are not indiscriminate, as has been proven in the science. Thus, I cannot call them contagious—they are highly specific and only infect certain types of cells, nor are they directly disease causing.
However, they do appear alongside disease, which gives the illusion that they cause disease. But as with all things in the body, there is a cause and effect, an action and reaction.
Regarding that picture of the things that were filtered out of the stool sample. How exactly do you know that those things were 'viruses'? Who knows what they are? You are just assuming they are 'viruses'.
Instead of asking me, why don't you read the studies yourself and you'll find out? It's all answered there.
Do you mean this?
""The 2% second human passage stool filtrate (8Fiia) used in these immune electron microscopy studies was derived from a stool specimen of a volunteer who developed gastroenteritis after oral administration of a stool filtrate derived from one of the two volunteers who became ill after receiving the original inoculum from the Norwalk outbreak (1, 11, 12). The 8FMa pool, which had been filtered through a 1,200- and a 450-nm membrane filter (Millipore Corp.) and prepared by previously described methods, was known to contain an infectious agent; it had induced gastroenteritis in 6 of 10 volunteers, but extensive attempts to recover or detect an etiological agent by conventional techniques were unsuccessful (11, 12; R. Dolin et al., unpublished studies). ""
Did they do any control experiments to see if the same particles could be obtained, by the same method, from 'uninfected' stool samples?
Or did they just 'assume' they wouldn't find them?
If you do not carry out proper control exeriments it's pseudoscience, not real science.
I quoted only a part of the study—that's not the entire study. This study has other studies related to it that answers all of your questions.
There are controls used in each related study, and they all describe the methods used.
You're certainly entitled to believe in any conspiracy theory you choose, but I don't share your perspective. While I may have entertained such ideas in the past, my growing knowledge has led me to realize that many conspiracy theories often stem from fear and misinformation and are often false.
Suggesting that fields such as biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology are influenced by 'Rockefeller Medicine Men' reveals a misguided assumption that conflates these disciplines with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. In reality, such claims are inaccurate and fail to acknowledge the distinct complexities within each scientific field.
Lastly, what does your comment have to do with No-Virus, which is the topic of this article? Are you a No-Virus proponent?
I'm well aware of the origin of the term, but 'conspiracy theory' is still a legitimate term. You've presented numerous BELIEFS on irrelevant topics through a conspiratorial lens.
You still haven't answered my question. Are you a No-Virus proponent?
Medical science is distinct from virology and other scientific disciplines. While it draws upon various branches of science for validation and support, it remains a separate field. It is inaccurate to conflate the two as if they are the same.
You seem to believe that I lack understanding of the topics you reference. In reality, I am well-versed in them. However, none of these topics are directly pertinent to the study of viruses.
"The notion that it does not have to be entirely and completely isolated just does not pass the common basic smell test."
It actually makes perfect sense because microorganisms, and other biological entities, do not have to be completely pure to be studied—It is a fallacy to claim otherwise. You cannot name one instance where 100% purity is necessary, or even possible to achieve. The claim that viruses have never been isolated is unequivocally incorrect. This claim is the direct opposite of all scientific evidence and stems from a misinformed and ignorant perspective.