I really appreciate the middle path you've walked between between the entrenched camps in Germ and Terrain Theory. With Germ Theory you've got microbes as demonic attackers that kill and destroy indiscriminately and that the victim is powerless to stop, and with some in the Terrain Theory camp they think viruses are a hoax and that all contagion is impossible, and even that there's really no immune system.
Fascinated by your hypothesis that the body accepts viruses generated from other organisms if it thinks they would be beneficial for clearing out toxins. That would mean viral contagion happens as generally understood, but there's less fear attached to it as it's not a random demonic attack…it's actually a choice made by your body to try to heal, which the body often succeeds but sometimes fails at.
In light of your current understanding, what's your thoughts about the danger of bioweapons released into the atmosphere? If they worked, would they only be a danger to the already sick? My current position is that direct injections are much more dangerous, and if I was a psychopathic military mastermind, that's how I'd deploy them. Take the so-called "Gulf War Syndrome" that was blamed on depleted uranium. That seemed to be a cover-up for the harm caused by the anthrax vaccines given to the soldiers at the time (I'm not asserting the vaccines were intended as a bioweapon in that case, but that the injections were very dangerous and the blame was shifted to some external cause "in the air").
What about the so-called 'lab leak' theory of Covid-19? I certainly have my doubts about this narrative, but I'd be interested to know if you think it's even possible in theory.
Thanks for the questions, Ryan. The bioweapons question is a valid one and something I’ve been contemplating for years. It’s indeed a complex issue to address. Understanding the actual nature of viruses, as opposed to speculative or inaccurate beliefs, is important for getting closer to the truth. While viruses can be modified, I would contend that the challenge lies in effectively dispersing them through the air or via injection, given the need to maintain their viability at specific temperatures. I remain unconvinced that a lab leak was the source, but don't rule it out completely; a more plausible scenario might be zoonotic spillover from wildlife, potentially driven by environmental changes that push animals closer to human populations, primarily due to increased pollution. The lab leak theory ignores the evidence and biological reasons showing why viruses would become more of a problem as time goes on. Nevertheless, this is still an area where I haven’t found a fully satisfactory explanation. Suffice it to say, the answer lies somewhere in between, but in my view is heavily tilted toward natural origin.
Depression can also impact the severity of any infections by causing muscle tension in the chest—a sensation akin to carrying "the weight of the world"—which disrupts lung tissue and mucus production. This can lead to respiratory issues such as coughs, colds, and increased susceptibility to viruses, where toxins are not effectively expelled or bound in mucus, potentially causing lung cell damage. I also factor things like this into the equation.
You’re right that direct injection would pose a greater risk because it bypasses the body’s natural defense mechanisms, such as mucus membranes and respiratory filters, making it a far more dangerous route of exposure. Breathing in viruses on a large scale would be impractical, in my view. This is why I argue that environmental factors are causing the emergence of viruses in human populations, as our environment is inducing unnatural fluctuations in temperature, humidity, and pressure, caused primarily by the increase in pollution over time. At the very least, it is at least a contributing factor in the totality of circumstances.
I now contend that viral mutations are emerging naturally within organisms and that organisms naturally exchange genetic information, which indirectly helps combat cellular degeneration caused by environmental conditions. Thus, there are two factors at play. As toxicity levels rise in organisms, we will continue to see more viral mutations that are better suited to this more toxic environment. This creates a thinner line between benign and dangerous; as organisms become more toxic, more adaptable viral variants and strains that are more solvent in structure are required to detoxify them, making viruses appear increasingly threatening. Essentially, the more toxic a cell is, the more robust and solvent the virus must be, and therefore, the more 'dangerous' the virus must be.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬: Imagine a sponge in a dirty sink. The more grime and gunk there is in the sink, the more absorbent and resilient the sponge needs to be to clean it effectively. Similarly, as new toxins emerge, cells must evolve viruses to be more robust and adaptable to handle and clear out the increased "grime," making it appear more dangerous; i. e., the law of averages.
Regarding Gulf War Syndrome, multiple factors are implicated, as you noted. These include exposure to sarin and VX nerve agents, depleted uranium, burn pits, substandard or toxic vaccines, and pesticide use. Each of these could contribute to the symptoms associated with Gulf War Syndrome.
Excellent point about multiple factors causing the Gulf War Syndrome. Even I sometimes fall into the old habit from Germ Theory, thinking one-disease = one-cause (a habit of scientific thinking from earlier centuries, perhaps? Treating biology like Newtonian physics?).
In your current paradigm, what's your view of antibiotics and antiviral medications? There's no denying that can relieve disease symptoms, but criticisms I've heard from Terrain Theory proponents is that it can be a kind of "deal with the devil" where the symptoms go away, but this is only the illusion of healing because the body suddenly switches to focusing on removing the antibiotic instead (implying the body can generally only run one healing program at a time), and this leaves the original cause of the disease still in place, leading to a worse disease later (like cancer). I'm open to the idea that antibiotics might be helpful with some conditions, as they appear to help people heal sometimes, but don't clearly understand how in the Terrain Theory paradigm.
As you mentioned, there were unique and harsh conditions in the Iraq Wars that made soldiers sick. I often think about the so-called Spanish Flu and how that also relates to the unique conditions of WWI. Not only did you have the malnutrition and the stress of the first mechanised war along with the terrible conditions in the trenches, you had probably the biggest mandatory vaccine program to date for the soldiers and the overdosing of Aspirin (Bayer's patent expired in 1917, so every drug company was keen to make and sell as much of this wonder pain-killer as they could, not waiting to test what the safe dosage was).
The Terrain Theory concept of accumulative toxic load (sometimes coupled with accumulative malnutrition) is a much more satisfying explanation for the cause of most diseases. A single cause CAN happen, of course, like some overwhelming toxic exposure (e.g. mustard gas attack, or being next to a chemical plant explosion), but the vast majority of chronic conditions are caused by the accumulation of insults to the body. Always looking for the 'one cause' seems childish compared to that.
The monocausal paradigm of Germ Theory sometimes leads to the absurd. For example, there's never a satisfying explanation of why "deadly and malicious" microbes can exist inside a person and not harm them. The only explanation offered is that a person has a strong immune system that "fights them off" and that some pathogens somehow remain "dormant", but this is less than convincing. I suppose this is the closest Germ Theory gets to multiple cause explanations, is that a toxin or a stress "breaks down the immune system" and then this lets the ever-present demons in (the microbes) that are the cause of disease.
At the time of the Spanish Flu the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal from 1919 contains a comical article called "Influenza: Is it a hazard to be healthy?". In it the authors are completely puzzled why the most "husky" men "in the prime of life" are dying more of influenza than the "weak". Doctors have a blind spot for blaming themselves, or for seeking out iatrogenic causes. They apparently could not conceive that it might be their medical inventions (and the conditions of war) effecting the very demographic that were the most "husky", the soldiery.
As for the skepticism surrounding the existence of Covid-19 (or skepticism it was actually a novel coronavirus) I suspect you'd posit that we should expect unique viruses to be created by nature as a reaction to unique pollutants. Would that be fair? This would be counter to the mainstream, which has this Neo-Darwinist view of everything driven by chance mutations, or everything as an accident without any purpose.
A '5G' connection is mentioned a lot in skeptical circles as a possible cause of Covid-19, but we have to resist falling back into one-disease = one-cause thinking. Although maybe not '5G' exactly, we can't dismiss that the increase of man-made electro-magnetic radiation is a new kind of stressor, a new kind of environment humans haven't been in before, and it could be a contributor, among other modern pollutants. Would be interested in your current thinking about this, too. I've heard that the early hotspots, Wuhan and Milan, also were known for their poor air quality, as well as having some new vaccine roll outs that could have contributed, so I suspect it was a unique set of modern conditions.
Yes, it's easy to revert to thinking along the lines of Germ Theory, but much of that stems from earlier ignorance. I deal with the same inclinations but recognize their roots. Regarding antibiotics, I believe they have their place but should be used primarily in severe cases and for short periods. At the beginning of the year, I wrote an article about my experience with antibiotics for an infection, which didn't bother me much at all. So, I do believe they have their use, though it was the first time I remember using antibiotics.
Historically, the military has been used as a test bed for various experiments, reflecting a broader ignorance of the biological effects of compounds produced by the military-industrial complex. One causative factor can indeed lead to illness or disease. However, in most cases, disease results from the accumulation of many small insults to the system, whereas illness from high exposure to a toxic substance normally occurs quickly. The problem may resolve, but the accumulation that caused it can persist in cells for a long time, sometimes years. Many substances, like mercury, cannot even be readily expelled from the body.
I began to question Germ Theory when I started consuming raw foods, like raw meats and raw milk, nearly 18 years ago. During that time, I have never contracted any diseases they claim would result from such practices. I have consumed these foods directly from grocery store shelves, including ground meats, without issue. I also fed my grandfather, who lived to 99, raw eggs and meat often, with no observed illness. Germ Theory is flawed because it views things in static situations, though I recognize some aspects of it to be true.
Regarding COVID-19, I speak from experience. I had coronavirus twice, and my grandfather died from "COVID pneumonia" in late 2022. The virus has distinct symptoms. The first time I developed it, shortly before my grandfather did, I lost my sense of taste and smell for over a month. It occurred just as the temperature changed and winter was approaching. I began experiencing extreme coughing, bad headaches, and difficulty breathing during exercise, which continued post-infection. You can tell, even just circumstantially, that it is a virus, because the body feels solvent. It feels acidic and you can feel it working in waves, as viruses are replicating, and mucus is being formed to bind with toxins. I also tested positive with a PCR test. As the infection subsided, I did another test, which showed that it was indeed subsiding. This does make me believe they are largely accurate in their ability to test if you have an ongoing viral infection.
Eventually, I overcame the first infection. Like most illness does, it resurfaces again until complete resolution. A year later, like clockwork, it resurfaced at the same time of year, almost to the day. This time, it was milder than the first. Afterward, my health improved significantly, better than since childhood, and my breathing improved better than it has been for many years.
Such detoxications have beneficial effects if you are eating properly and active during them. Those in poor health succumb not to the virus but to their inability to combat accumulated cellular toxicity during viral replication, wherein their extracellular fluids become inundated with diluted toxins.
In regard to 5G, it is actually safer than 4G because its high-frequency millimeter waves are more likely to be absorbed by atmospheric gases, rain, and physical structures, reducing their penetration ability. Exposure levels are regulated to ensure they remain within safety limits set by international guidelines. I often laugh at the concerns, considering the millions of radio waves, both natural and man-made, penetrating our bodies at any given moment. You can't escape it if you tried. Further, the health impact of electromagnetic fields depends on frequency, power density, and exposure duration. You are exposed to far more levels of electromagnetic fields while riding in a car than from 5G networks.
Regarding Wuhan, Wuhan is a major industrial hub with numerous industries, including steel production, automobile manufacturing, electronics, and petrochemicals. These industries contribute to substantial air and water pollution. Factories and power plants emit large quantities of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, leading to poor air quality and posing major health risks to residents.
Wuhan frequently experiences high levels of smog, particularly in winter when coal consumption for heating increases. The city's air quality index often exceeds safe limits, with PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) being a significant problem. PM2.5 particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, causing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. So, there's your coronavirus susceptibility.
Thank you Jeff. For putting so much energy into your reply. I'll re-read the above and digest it again. After one read, it seems that your three answers are:
1. No. That is, viruses do not cause illness.
2. No. That is, viruses are never materially transmissible by any natural mechanism.
3. A virus is a particle that results from specific cellular environments and conditions and playing indirect roles in cellular detoxification.
I can see that your disagreement with the "no virus" crowd would be resolved with a simple change in the definition of a virus. Eg. If they claimed there is no such thing as a virus particle which is materially transmissible by natural means or can cause any illness, then you'd be in total agreement.
Regarding point 1, while viruses do not directly cause illness, they can be involved in disease processes, as seen in conditions like polio or other degenerative diseases. The distinction in some cases is blurred to the extent that viruses seem to contribute to the disease state, even though they are not the initial cause. They do, however, play a role in exacerbating or contributing to the progression of the disease.
On point 2, I did not assert that viruses are never transmissible through natural mechanisms. Instead, I indicated that while viruses may be transmitted, they do not affect healthy, robust cells and must target specific, unstable cell types to establish infection.
For point 3, you are entirely correct.
Regarding the definition of 'virus': No-Virus has a distinct claim of what they consider to be a virus. You might not be familiar with this, as it is not widely known. To clarify, No-Virus previously asserted that structural particles, whether viral or otherwise, are merely exosomes. They then argued that these particles are simply cell debris or artifacts resulting from human activities and that they do not exist as intelligently created structures of cellular production. Recently, No-Virus has revised their position, acknowledging the existence of some intelligent particles—such as phages—but maintaining that other particles are only cell debris, artifacts, or simply do not exist, with the preface that phages are not viruses, according to them. This represents a shift from their earlier stance, where they denied the existence of such particles altogether.
‘However, I now acknowledge that external viruses may play a role in the process of imparting cells with genetic information to code certain viruses.’ Since viruses are non-living, no wings, no digestive tract, science says are indiscriminate, etc. how would external viruses get into another’s body?! What we have been indoctrinated with, to fear our own nature (in order for pharma/medicine to further poison us with their so-called cure$, keeping folks in lesser health, while continually lining their pocket$), that symptoms of sneezing and coughing are the end result of detoxifications, nothing living there to ‘infect’ others and it would have to be voluminous to even be recognized by one’s immune system as foreign. External viruses, yes, as in manipulated to form a vaccine of some sort or be used in cancer therapy…still not natural means of getting into the body.
I really appreciate the middle path you've walked between between the entrenched camps in Germ and Terrain Theory. With Germ Theory you've got microbes as demonic attackers that kill and destroy indiscriminately and that the victim is powerless to stop, and with some in the Terrain Theory camp they think viruses are a hoax and that all contagion is impossible, and even that there's really no immune system.
Fascinated by your hypothesis that the body accepts viruses generated from other organisms if it thinks they would be beneficial for clearing out toxins. That would mean viral contagion happens as generally understood, but there's less fear attached to it as it's not a random demonic attack…it's actually a choice made by your body to try to heal, which the body often succeeds but sometimes fails at.
In light of your current understanding, what's your thoughts about the danger of bioweapons released into the atmosphere? If they worked, would they only be a danger to the already sick? My current position is that direct injections are much more dangerous, and if I was a psychopathic military mastermind, that's how I'd deploy them. Take the so-called "Gulf War Syndrome" that was blamed on depleted uranium. That seemed to be a cover-up for the harm caused by the anthrax vaccines given to the soldiers at the time (I'm not asserting the vaccines were intended as a bioweapon in that case, but that the injections were very dangerous and the blame was shifted to some external cause "in the air").
What about the so-called 'lab leak' theory of Covid-19? I certainly have my doubts about this narrative, but I'd be interested to know if you think it's even possible in theory.
Thanks for the questions, Ryan. The bioweapons question is a valid one and something I’ve been contemplating for years. It’s indeed a complex issue to address. Understanding the actual nature of viruses, as opposed to speculative or inaccurate beliefs, is important for getting closer to the truth. While viruses can be modified, I would contend that the challenge lies in effectively dispersing them through the air or via injection, given the need to maintain their viability at specific temperatures. I remain unconvinced that a lab leak was the source, but don't rule it out completely; a more plausible scenario might be zoonotic spillover from wildlife, potentially driven by environmental changes that push animals closer to human populations, primarily due to increased pollution. The lab leak theory ignores the evidence and biological reasons showing why viruses would become more of a problem as time goes on. Nevertheless, this is still an area where I haven’t found a fully satisfactory explanation. Suffice it to say, the answer lies somewhere in between, but in my view is heavily tilted toward natural origin.
Depression can also impact the severity of any infections by causing muscle tension in the chest—a sensation akin to carrying "the weight of the world"—which disrupts lung tissue and mucus production. This can lead to respiratory issues such as coughs, colds, and increased susceptibility to viruses, where toxins are not effectively expelled or bound in mucus, potentially causing lung cell damage. I also factor things like this into the equation.
You’re right that direct injection would pose a greater risk because it bypasses the body’s natural defense mechanisms, such as mucus membranes and respiratory filters, making it a far more dangerous route of exposure. Breathing in viruses on a large scale would be impractical, in my view. This is why I argue that environmental factors are causing the emergence of viruses in human populations, as our environment is inducing unnatural fluctuations in temperature, humidity, and pressure, caused primarily by the increase in pollution over time. At the very least, it is at least a contributing factor in the totality of circumstances.
I now contend that viral mutations are emerging naturally within organisms and that organisms naturally exchange genetic information, which indirectly helps combat cellular degeneration caused by environmental conditions. Thus, there are two factors at play. As toxicity levels rise in organisms, we will continue to see more viral mutations that are better suited to this more toxic environment. This creates a thinner line between benign and dangerous; as organisms become more toxic, more adaptable viral variants and strains that are more solvent in structure are required to detoxify them, making viruses appear increasingly threatening. Essentially, the more toxic a cell is, the more robust and solvent the virus must be, and therefore, the more 'dangerous' the virus must be.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬: Imagine a sponge in a dirty sink. The more grime and gunk there is in the sink, the more absorbent and resilient the sponge needs to be to clean it effectively. Similarly, as new toxins emerge, cells must evolve viruses to be more robust and adaptable to handle and clear out the increased "grime," making it appear more dangerous; i. e., the law of averages.
Regarding Gulf War Syndrome, multiple factors are implicated, as you noted. These include exposure to sarin and VX nerve agents, depleted uranium, burn pits, substandard or toxic vaccines, and pesticide use. Each of these could contribute to the symptoms associated with Gulf War Syndrome.
Excellent point about multiple factors causing the Gulf War Syndrome. Even I sometimes fall into the old habit from Germ Theory, thinking one-disease = one-cause (a habit of scientific thinking from earlier centuries, perhaps? Treating biology like Newtonian physics?).
In your current paradigm, what's your view of antibiotics and antiviral medications? There's no denying that can relieve disease symptoms, but criticisms I've heard from Terrain Theory proponents is that it can be a kind of "deal with the devil" where the symptoms go away, but this is only the illusion of healing because the body suddenly switches to focusing on removing the antibiotic instead (implying the body can generally only run one healing program at a time), and this leaves the original cause of the disease still in place, leading to a worse disease later (like cancer). I'm open to the idea that antibiotics might be helpful with some conditions, as they appear to help people heal sometimes, but don't clearly understand how in the Terrain Theory paradigm.
As you mentioned, there were unique and harsh conditions in the Iraq Wars that made soldiers sick. I often think about the so-called Spanish Flu and how that also relates to the unique conditions of WWI. Not only did you have the malnutrition and the stress of the first mechanised war along with the terrible conditions in the trenches, you had probably the biggest mandatory vaccine program to date for the soldiers and the overdosing of Aspirin (Bayer's patent expired in 1917, so every drug company was keen to make and sell as much of this wonder pain-killer as they could, not waiting to test what the safe dosage was).
The Terrain Theory concept of accumulative toxic load (sometimes coupled with accumulative malnutrition) is a much more satisfying explanation for the cause of most diseases. A single cause CAN happen, of course, like some overwhelming toxic exposure (e.g. mustard gas attack, or being next to a chemical plant explosion), but the vast majority of chronic conditions are caused by the accumulation of insults to the body. Always looking for the 'one cause' seems childish compared to that.
The monocausal paradigm of Germ Theory sometimes leads to the absurd. For example, there's never a satisfying explanation of why "deadly and malicious" microbes can exist inside a person and not harm them. The only explanation offered is that a person has a strong immune system that "fights them off" and that some pathogens somehow remain "dormant", but this is less than convincing. I suppose this is the closest Germ Theory gets to multiple cause explanations, is that a toxin or a stress "breaks down the immune system" and then this lets the ever-present demons in (the microbes) that are the cause of disease.
At the time of the Spanish Flu the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal from 1919 contains a comical article called "Influenza: Is it a hazard to be healthy?". In it the authors are completely puzzled why the most "husky" men "in the prime of life" are dying more of influenza than the "weak". Doctors have a blind spot for blaming themselves, or for seeking out iatrogenic causes. They apparently could not conceive that it might be their medical inventions (and the conditions of war) effecting the very demographic that were the most "husky", the soldiery.
As for the skepticism surrounding the existence of Covid-19 (or skepticism it was actually a novel coronavirus) I suspect you'd posit that we should expect unique viruses to be created by nature as a reaction to unique pollutants. Would that be fair? This would be counter to the mainstream, which has this Neo-Darwinist view of everything driven by chance mutations, or everything as an accident without any purpose.
A '5G' connection is mentioned a lot in skeptical circles as a possible cause of Covid-19, but we have to resist falling back into one-disease = one-cause thinking. Although maybe not '5G' exactly, we can't dismiss that the increase of man-made electro-magnetic radiation is a new kind of stressor, a new kind of environment humans haven't been in before, and it could be a contributor, among other modern pollutants. Would be interested in your current thinking about this, too. I've heard that the early hotspots, Wuhan and Milan, also were known for their poor air quality, as well as having some new vaccine roll outs that could have contributed, so I suspect it was a unique set of modern conditions.
Yes, it's easy to revert to thinking along the lines of Germ Theory, but much of that stems from earlier ignorance. I deal with the same inclinations but recognize their roots. Regarding antibiotics, I believe they have their place but should be used primarily in severe cases and for short periods. At the beginning of the year, I wrote an article about my experience with antibiotics for an infection, which didn't bother me much at all. So, I do believe they have their use, though it was the first time I remember using antibiotics.
Historically, the military has been used as a test bed for various experiments, reflecting a broader ignorance of the biological effects of compounds produced by the military-industrial complex. One causative factor can indeed lead to illness or disease. However, in most cases, disease results from the accumulation of many small insults to the system, whereas illness from high exposure to a toxic substance normally occurs quickly. The problem may resolve, but the accumulation that caused it can persist in cells for a long time, sometimes years. Many substances, like mercury, cannot even be readily expelled from the body.
I began to question Germ Theory when I started consuming raw foods, like raw meats and raw milk, nearly 18 years ago. During that time, I have never contracted any diseases they claim would result from such practices. I have consumed these foods directly from grocery store shelves, including ground meats, without issue. I also fed my grandfather, who lived to 99, raw eggs and meat often, with no observed illness. Germ Theory is flawed because it views things in static situations, though I recognize some aspects of it to be true.
Regarding COVID-19, I speak from experience. I had coronavirus twice, and my grandfather died from "COVID pneumonia" in late 2022. The virus has distinct symptoms. The first time I developed it, shortly before my grandfather did, I lost my sense of taste and smell for over a month. It occurred just as the temperature changed and winter was approaching. I began experiencing extreme coughing, bad headaches, and difficulty breathing during exercise, which continued post-infection. You can tell, even just circumstantially, that it is a virus, because the body feels solvent. It feels acidic and you can feel it working in waves, as viruses are replicating, and mucus is being formed to bind with toxins. I also tested positive with a PCR test. As the infection subsided, I did another test, which showed that it was indeed subsiding. This does make me believe they are largely accurate in their ability to test if you have an ongoing viral infection.
Eventually, I overcame the first infection. Like most illness does, it resurfaces again until complete resolution. A year later, like clockwork, it resurfaced at the same time of year, almost to the day. This time, it was milder than the first. Afterward, my health improved significantly, better than since childhood, and my breathing improved better than it has been for many years.
Such detoxications have beneficial effects if you are eating properly and active during them. Those in poor health succumb not to the virus but to their inability to combat accumulated cellular toxicity during viral replication, wherein their extracellular fluids become inundated with diluted toxins.
In regard to 5G, it is actually safer than 4G because its high-frequency millimeter waves are more likely to be absorbed by atmospheric gases, rain, and physical structures, reducing their penetration ability. Exposure levels are regulated to ensure they remain within safety limits set by international guidelines. I often laugh at the concerns, considering the millions of radio waves, both natural and man-made, penetrating our bodies at any given moment. You can't escape it if you tried. Further, the health impact of electromagnetic fields depends on frequency, power density, and exposure duration. You are exposed to far more levels of electromagnetic fields while riding in a car than from 5G networks.
Regarding Wuhan, Wuhan is a major industrial hub with numerous industries, including steel production, automobile manufacturing, electronics, and petrochemicals. These industries contribute to substantial air and water pollution. Factories and power plants emit large quantities of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, leading to poor air quality and posing major health risks to residents.
Wuhan frequently experiences high levels of smog, particularly in winter when coal consumption for heating increases. The city's air quality index often exceeds safe limits, with PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) being a significant problem. PM2.5 particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, causing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. So, there's your coronavirus susceptibility.
Thank you Jeff. For putting so much energy into your reply. I'll re-read the above and digest it again. After one read, it seems that your three answers are:
1. No. That is, viruses do not cause illness.
2. No. That is, viruses are never materially transmissible by any natural mechanism.
3. A virus is a particle that results from specific cellular environments and conditions and playing indirect roles in cellular detoxification.
I can see that your disagreement with the "no virus" crowd would be resolved with a simple change in the definition of a virus. Eg. If they claimed there is no such thing as a virus particle which is materially transmissible by natural means or can cause any illness, then you'd be in total agreement.
Regarding point 1, while viruses do not directly cause illness, they can be involved in disease processes, as seen in conditions like polio or other degenerative diseases. The distinction in some cases is blurred to the extent that viruses seem to contribute to the disease state, even though they are not the initial cause. They do, however, play a role in exacerbating or contributing to the progression of the disease.
On point 2, I did not assert that viruses are never transmissible through natural mechanisms. Instead, I indicated that while viruses may be transmitted, they do not affect healthy, robust cells and must target specific, unstable cell types to establish infection.
For point 3, you are entirely correct.
Regarding the definition of 'virus': No-Virus has a distinct claim of what they consider to be a virus. You might not be familiar with this, as it is not widely known. To clarify, No-Virus previously asserted that structural particles, whether viral or otherwise, are merely exosomes. They then argued that these particles are simply cell debris or artifacts resulting from human activities and that they do not exist as intelligently created structures of cellular production. Recently, No-Virus has revised their position, acknowledging the existence of some intelligent particles—such as phages—but maintaining that other particles are only cell debris, artifacts, or simply do not exist, with the preface that phages are not viruses, according to them. This represents a shift from their earlier stance, where they denied the existence of such particles altogether.
‘However, I now acknowledge that external viruses may play a role in the process of imparting cells with genetic information to code certain viruses.’ Since viruses are non-living, no wings, no digestive tract, science says are indiscriminate, etc. how would external viruses get into another’s body?! What we have been indoctrinated with, to fear our own nature (in order for pharma/medicine to further poison us with their so-called cure$, keeping folks in lesser health, while continually lining their pocket$), that symptoms of sneezing and coughing are the end result of detoxifications, nothing living there to ‘infect’ others and it would have to be voluminous to even be recognized by one’s immune system as foreign. External viruses, yes, as in manipulated to form a vaccine of some sort or be used in cancer therapy…still not natural means of getting into the body.
Catching up in my reading…will have to re-read your modified view/hypothesis. Next to figure out how to prove/show this new hypothesis…