Sep 17, 2023·edited Sep 17, 2023Liked by Jeff Green
I have a suggestion. Stop using the word 'virus' altogether. Agree that the three components to the meaning as it is normally used - a molecular biology/organic chemistry definition, a notion of it being an invader or attacker and causing disease in and of itself, and the entrenched ideas of when/how it is passed from person to person - make it impossible to use the word. So just stop using it (except to occasionally tie in your new more precise words with typical uses of the V word). This has the added bonus that the people who are serious will identify themselves, as they'll see the value in this as you talk and go along with it - and the ones who just want to argue and emote and don't care about truth (we know the main culprits) will insist on reverting to the old definition to keep alive the definitional confusion on which their arguments rests.
John, I appreciate your comment and I understand your suggestion. However, there are important reasons why I choose to use the term "virus." It is important to note that the pressure to abandon the word "virus" entirely came from the "No-Virus" group, which harassed me and attempted to discredit my use of the term. These individuals fail to comprehend that the definition of "virus" as 'poison' was coined during a period when the understanding of viruses was considerably limited. Scientific knowledge evolves and develops over time, and the understanding of viruses has undergone significant advancements since the term was first established, and it still has room to evolve.
The early definition of "virus" as 'poison' reflected the initial observations and limited knowledge available at that time. As scientific research progressed and our understanding deepened, it became evident that viruses are complex entities with specific structures, genetic material, and replication mechanisms. They are not simply toxins or poisons in the traditional sense.
There are significant justifications for my continued usage of the term "virus," which prevent me from adopting an alternative. Firstly, a virus is a specific chemical structure produced by cells, functioning as a solvent. There is an abundance of scientific research supporting this classification. The distinguishing factors lie in their purported pathogenicity, although even that aspect is not straightforward, as viruses are obligate parasites that require host cells for their life cycle.
Secondly, viruses possess unique structural characteristics that are exclusive to them, setting them apart from other cellular components. Therefore, viruses are distinct entities within the body's solvents. However, one of the primary reasons I adhere to using the term "virus" is because it is universally understood by people worldwide. For instance, we do not refer to bacteria by any other name, despite the fact that many bacteria have been erroneously labeled as pathogenic and disease-causing. Therefore, caution must be exercised when choosing terminology.
Lastly, concerning the "No-Virus" group, it is important to note that changing the terminology would not make a difference. They have already propagated the false notion that no such particles exist. Even if I were to refer to them as "Stressed Cell Solvents (SCSs)" or any other alternative name, they would still deny their existence, as they argue that science cannot isolate and purify them. Thus, this debate is merely a word game orchestrated by individuals with ulterior motives.
Despite the pressure to abandon the term "virus," I find it necessary to continue using it due to its established scientific foundation, the unique characteristics of viruses, the universal understanding of the term, and the futility of changing the terminology in the face of persistent denial by the "No-Virus" group.
I assumed you were doing it deliberately, and can understand why as far as can while knowing almost nothing of molecular biology or biochemistry or whatever. I can only speak from my own experience in engineering projects, where something changes and a word becomes a source of constant confusion/circularity every time it is used, and simply must be banned. I see the same here.
And yes, I suppose it would make no difference to the no-virus group. But it would at least (well, maybe) stop them switching between "that's not a virus because we can't see/isolate it" and "that's not a virus because it didn't cause a disease" whenever it suits them. In fact it's entirely possible that my comment was secretly just a desire that you end this charade, that you somehow vanquish the most insufferable, logic-free, one-note person on the internet (quite a claim I know, but entirely justified).
This goes beyond just the virus problem; there are other claims made by this group of individuals. They now assert that crucial cellular components are non-existent, that white blood cells functioning as antibodies are non-existent, and even that exosomes do not exist.
Despite their misunderstood pathogenicity, viruses align more closely with scientific explanations than not, as far as their morphology and existence are concerned.
I presume that your last comment refers to Massey, who is one of the most intolerable, illogical, and single-minded individuals on the internet.
Yes I think I know the claims you are referring to, I was curious and read into it a year or so ago - it starts I believe with Gilbert Ling and then some guy from here (UK), Harold Hillman. I read a couple of short books and watched a few videos, but was just too out of my depth to form my own opinion on it. I love reading dissident theories like this - even if it's wrong, it really makes you think about what you assume you know. An article on Ling and Hillman would be of interest, to me anyway. And yes I was referring to her - I didn't name her as I actually felt sorry for her last time I read her comments, it's painful to read.
Sep 19, 2023·edited Sep 19, 2023Liked by Jeff Green
V interesting, thanks. This is so true:
"Hillman is allowed to infer characteristics of cells without seeing them, but other researchers cannot"
Routinely they will be super pedantic and rigorous when evaluating the evidence/process of their opponents, and then handwave and speculate in an even worse fashion themselves without a second thought.
Sep 17, 2023·edited Sep 17, 2023Liked by Jeff Green
I have said to many that processed inflammatory foods from Supermarkets, Takeaways have a multitude of unlisted and listed toxins that require the human body to detoxify of which viruses are also a part of today's detoxification in a larger way.
I have learned that DEHYDRATION and TOXIC OVERLOAD represent all diseases.
Once diseased one is led to the Witch Doctors and Poison makers to further increase toxicification.
The Greek term is a Pharmacy. Let you all do some homework.
I have also been told that universities also teach that viruses attack the human body,. hummm. I am glad that I did not go there. This is illogical.
Yes, viruses originate from a state of disease in all instances, where cells become overwhelmed by challenging-to-break-down toxins and their byproducts. In response, cells produce viruses as a form of cellular soap. Within the realm of cellular biology, various solvents, such as lysosomes, aid in breaking down cellular toxicity within the protective confines of the cellular wall. However, viruses must operate outside the cell and exist in extracellular fluid without causing damage to everything they encounter. Consequently, viruses exhibit remarkable biological specificity.
When cells confront an excessive buildup of toxins and byproducts, viruses serve as a means of cellular self-preservation. They help selectively disintegrate these harmful substances and effectively dilute their causticity out and away from cells. By doing so, viruses aid in reducing the internal burden of cellular toxicity, thereby promoting overall cellular health.
While cells possess internal mechanisms, such as lysosomes, to handle cellular waste, viruses play a unique role in handling toxic substances that cannot be adequately managed within the cell's internal environment. By releasing these substances outside the cell, viruses protect the integrity of the cellular machinery and prevent widespread damage that could occur if these toxins were to accumulate unchecked.
The biological specificity of viruses is a key aspect of their function. Unlike lysosomes or other cellular solvents, viruses possess specific structures and characteristics that enable them to interact with target cells or tissues selectively. They rely on specific receptors or surface proteins present on the target cells, allowing for a precise and targeted process. This specificity ensures that viruses primarily affect specific cell types or organisms, while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells.
Sep 17, 2023·edited Sep 17, 2023Liked by Jeff Green
All that Jeff explained on his original clip was for me down the garden path and he added a lot more as well. I refer his site to many and also to a local GP. Subsequent comment on Jeff's site was " very interesting"
I do not see much of him as I treat myself.
What I will say that in the 60s and 70s there were general articles on the projection of a WW3 being a biological warfare. Like the one we are in now. The con job is let the people take the drug under lies and untruths. The believing unresearched individual/public are their own worst enemy.
In a data rich planet where propaganda and truth is a fog the logical facts become obscure and lost to many. I hold one of the viral misconceptions to the I.T, "My computer caught a virus". This was obviously taken from the biological viral untruth. Over 60yrs ago at elementary school I related diet to sickness.
Indeed, that analogy holds true. Even in the realm of computer viruses, they require a living person to open or execute the infected file for them to cause harm to the recipient's system. In a similar vein, we can draw a parallel to biological viruses, where they rely on specific conditions and interactions to initiate their solvent effects.
Just as a computer virus cannot independently wreak havoc without someone willingly or inadvertently interacting with it, biological viruses also require specific circumstances to interact with an organism and its cells. They must operate by using certain receptors or entry points being present. They need a permissive environment, such as a susceptible host cell, to initiate their modes of action and cannot autonomously invade and replicate within cells indiscriminately.
I have a suggestion. Stop using the word 'virus' altogether. Agree that the three components to the meaning as it is normally used - a molecular biology/organic chemistry definition, a notion of it being an invader or attacker and causing disease in and of itself, and the entrenched ideas of when/how it is passed from person to person - make it impossible to use the word. So just stop using it (except to occasionally tie in your new more precise words with typical uses of the V word). This has the added bonus that the people who are serious will identify themselves, as they'll see the value in this as you talk and go along with it - and the ones who just want to argue and emote and don't care about truth (we know the main culprits) will insist on reverting to the old definition to keep alive the definitional confusion on which their arguments rests.
John, I appreciate your comment and I understand your suggestion. However, there are important reasons why I choose to use the term "virus." It is important to note that the pressure to abandon the word "virus" entirely came from the "No-Virus" group, which harassed me and attempted to discredit my use of the term. These individuals fail to comprehend that the definition of "virus" as 'poison' was coined during a period when the understanding of viruses was considerably limited. Scientific knowledge evolves and develops over time, and the understanding of viruses has undergone significant advancements since the term was first established, and it still has room to evolve.
The early definition of "virus" as 'poison' reflected the initial observations and limited knowledge available at that time. As scientific research progressed and our understanding deepened, it became evident that viruses are complex entities with specific structures, genetic material, and replication mechanisms. They are not simply toxins or poisons in the traditional sense.
There are significant justifications for my continued usage of the term "virus," which prevent me from adopting an alternative. Firstly, a virus is a specific chemical structure produced by cells, functioning as a solvent. There is an abundance of scientific research supporting this classification. The distinguishing factors lie in their purported pathogenicity, although even that aspect is not straightforward, as viruses are obligate parasites that require host cells for their life cycle.
Secondly, viruses possess unique structural characteristics that are exclusive to them, setting them apart from other cellular components. Therefore, viruses are distinct entities within the body's solvents. However, one of the primary reasons I adhere to using the term "virus" is because it is universally understood by people worldwide. For instance, we do not refer to bacteria by any other name, despite the fact that many bacteria have been erroneously labeled as pathogenic and disease-causing. Therefore, caution must be exercised when choosing terminology.
Lastly, concerning the "No-Virus" group, it is important to note that changing the terminology would not make a difference. They have already propagated the false notion that no such particles exist. Even if I were to refer to them as "Stressed Cell Solvents (SCSs)" or any other alternative name, they would still deny their existence, as they argue that science cannot isolate and purify them. Thus, this debate is merely a word game orchestrated by individuals with ulterior motives.
Despite the pressure to abandon the term "virus," I find it necessary to continue using it due to its established scientific foundation, the unique characteristics of viruses, the universal understanding of the term, and the futility of changing the terminology in the face of persistent denial by the "No-Virus" group.
I assumed you were doing it deliberately, and can understand why as far as can while knowing almost nothing of molecular biology or biochemistry or whatever. I can only speak from my own experience in engineering projects, where something changes and a word becomes a source of constant confusion/circularity every time it is used, and simply must be banned. I see the same here.
And yes, I suppose it would make no difference to the no-virus group. But it would at least (well, maybe) stop them switching between "that's not a virus because we can't see/isolate it" and "that's not a virus because it didn't cause a disease" whenever it suits them. In fact it's entirely possible that my comment was secretly just a desire that you end this charade, that you somehow vanquish the most insufferable, logic-free, one-note person on the internet (quite a claim I know, but entirely justified).
This goes beyond just the virus problem; there are other claims made by this group of individuals. They now assert that crucial cellular components are non-existent, that white blood cells functioning as antibodies are non-existent, and even that exosomes do not exist.
Despite their misunderstood pathogenicity, viruses align more closely with scientific explanations than not, as far as their morphology and existence are concerned.
I presume that your last comment refers to Massey, who is one of the most intolerable, illogical, and single-minded individuals on the internet.
Yes I think I know the claims you are referring to, I was curious and read into it a year or so ago - it starts I believe with Gilbert Ling and then some guy from here (UK), Harold Hillman. I read a couple of short books and watched a few videos, but was just too out of my depth to form my own opinion on it. I love reading dissident theories like this - even if it's wrong, it really makes you think about what you assume you know. An article on Ling and Hillman would be of interest, to me anyway. And yes I was referring to her - I didn't name her as I actually felt sorry for her last time I read her comments, it's painful to read.
Here's some of my writings on Hillman: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-fostering-a-scientific
V interesting, thanks. This is so true:
"Hillman is allowed to infer characteristics of cells without seeing them, but other researchers cannot"
Routinely they will be super pedantic and rigorous when evaluating the evidence/process of their opponents, and then handwave and speculate in an even worse fashion themselves without a second thought.
PS. just bought your book on Kindle
I have said to many that processed inflammatory foods from Supermarkets, Takeaways have a multitude of unlisted and listed toxins that require the human body to detoxify of which viruses are also a part of today's detoxification in a larger way.
I have learned that DEHYDRATION and TOXIC OVERLOAD represent all diseases.
Once diseased one is led to the Witch Doctors and Poison makers to further increase toxicification.
The Greek term is a Pharmacy. Let you all do some homework.
I have also been told that universities also teach that viruses attack the human body,. hummm. I am glad that I did not go there. This is illogical.
Yes, viruses originate from a state of disease in all instances, where cells become overwhelmed by challenging-to-break-down toxins and their byproducts. In response, cells produce viruses as a form of cellular soap. Within the realm of cellular biology, various solvents, such as lysosomes, aid in breaking down cellular toxicity within the protective confines of the cellular wall. However, viruses must operate outside the cell and exist in extracellular fluid without causing damage to everything they encounter. Consequently, viruses exhibit remarkable biological specificity.
When cells confront an excessive buildup of toxins and byproducts, viruses serve as a means of cellular self-preservation. They help selectively disintegrate these harmful substances and effectively dilute their causticity out and away from cells. By doing so, viruses aid in reducing the internal burden of cellular toxicity, thereby promoting overall cellular health.
While cells possess internal mechanisms, such as lysosomes, to handle cellular waste, viruses play a unique role in handling toxic substances that cannot be adequately managed within the cell's internal environment. By releasing these substances outside the cell, viruses protect the integrity of the cellular machinery and prevent widespread damage that could occur if these toxins were to accumulate unchecked.
The biological specificity of viruses is a key aspect of their function. Unlike lysosomes or other cellular solvents, viruses possess specific structures and characteristics that enable them to interact with target cells or tissues selectively. They rely on specific receptors or surface proteins present on the target cells, allowing for a precise and targeted process. This specificity ensures that viruses primarily affect specific cell types or organisms, while minimizing collateral damage to healthy cells.
All that Jeff explained on his original clip was for me down the garden path and he added a lot more as well. I refer his site to many and also to a local GP. Subsequent comment on Jeff's site was " very interesting"
I do not see much of him as I treat myself.
What I will say that in the 60s and 70s there were general articles on the projection of a WW3 being a biological warfare. Like the one we are in now. The con job is let the people take the drug under lies and untruths. The believing unresearched individual/public are their own worst enemy.
In a data rich planet where propaganda and truth is a fog the logical facts become obscure and lost to many. I hold one of the viral misconceptions to the I.T, "My computer caught a virus". This was obviously taken from the biological viral untruth. Over 60yrs ago at elementary school I related diet to sickness.
Indeed, that analogy holds true. Even in the realm of computer viruses, they require a living person to open or execute the infected file for them to cause harm to the recipient's system. In a similar vein, we can draw a parallel to biological viruses, where they rely on specific conditions and interactions to initiate their solvent effects.
Just as a computer virus cannot independently wreak havoc without someone willingly or inadvertently interacting with it, biological viruses also require specific circumstances to interact with an organism and its cells. They must operate by using certain receptors or entry points being present. They need a permissive environment, such as a susceptible host cell, to initiate their modes of action and cannot autonomously invade and replicate within cells indiscriminately.