Some survived, some don't, really. For those who survived it is all about probabilities. If virus would be deadly it will extinct with amoebas fast. If it is not, it will survive as amoebas Also those amoebas who developed protection against deadly viruses (occasional change in wall protein, f.e.) will survive too.
Whereas the virus concept requires such extraordinary parameters to achieve success yet has been limited for millions of years.
Taking in account trillions of trillions amoebas who live fast and divide young, this small probabilities moves from region of impossible to region of inevitable.
It is obvious that viruses can't evolve by themselves because they are not alive and could not survive without the cell with that protein fabric inside. But every cell have virus-like particles that transfer parts of DNA/RNA from core to their protein fabrics to grow and divide. billions of years and trillions of trillions primeval bacterias/amoebas/single-cell creatures give a good chance for such thing as virus to be created.
My argument here is that viruses, are a rebranding of simpler bacteria and do not exist in the modern formulation ie branding.
Bacterias are alive, all in all. Concept of virus is that it is a chemical substance, complex, but not able to reproduce by itself. And in simpliest possible bacteria you still have to have protein fabric to build and repair that bacteria. And that fabric have to somehow get instructions of what protein to build and how. And there should be a way to transfer parts of whole DNA to that fabrics. So we again have a ground for a virus creation.
how electronmicroscopy is misguided when searching for microscopic interactions with proteins --er-- viruses.
Not all viruses "found" only by PCR tests. Long time ago, when scientists wanted to know the truth, viruses was properly separated, purified and then that purified sample (water and particles of interest only) was used to produce same disease in plants or whatever test species. Separation process clearly point to the average size of studied objects and they was definitely much smaller than any potential bacteria. You can't have bacteria smaller than certain dimentions, because it needs certain parts to exists. estimated virus size was like single bacteria part. And they do not multiply by themselves, so they definitely need a host to reproduce.
There is no better theory of that observed phenomena. Even if methods used for preparation of samples for electron microscopy are questionable, they does not disprove that theory.
Since theory explains everything about viruses, and there are no disproofs, why should we throw it out?
Fact that some bastards use some theory for their scams does not make that theory wrong or evil. It is just a theory, and if it is incorrect, it should be disproven scientifically, and not politically of just because we don't like bastards who base their scam on it.
As for particle physics - imagine that you have a model that perfectly destcribe some part of curve. Every experiment in knwon range validates it. But it is unknown how that curve behave outside that known range. So, everybody is formally free to continue that curve as they wish. Rise it up, bent it down, for any degree. And every such "prediction" is a source of money. Standard model have a strict range. "Randomly continuing curve" is an equivalent of predicting new particle "based on standard model" with certain parameters. Parameters could be validated by actual experiment that will or will not show a particle with predicted parameters. Each prediction of new particle and experiment is a grant money. And nobody care if experiment disprove that random prediction, Publication is not retracted if prediction was proven false. "Scientists with publications" will just roll out a new one and those who give grants will give next grant for "opening new particle" because it sounds cool and it is a "scientist" with publications. You get a business instead of science based on perfectly valid theory.
That problem with commercialising even physics science is perfectly known, but too little scientists risk to talk about that in current circumstances.
I've dug into this theory a little bit, but it is hard to believe any source these days. For example, terrain theory states that the viruses found via isolation are nothing more than exosomes being misidentified. They also show experiments conducted throughout the early 20th century where scientists could not prove transmission from a sick person to a healthy person, with many attempts.
I can sort of get behind their disproving viruses, but the alternative they present hasn't been realistic, in my experience. I'm currently sick with the nastiest flu I've had since I was a kid. Apparently, I picked it up when I visited my parents. My dad was sick the day after I left. I didn't get any symptoms until 4 days later. My mom, who lives with him, didn't get it until 5 days later. My wife got it 3 days after I got home.
So there seems to be something more than toxins in the local environment causing transmission. If I had been exposed to a toxin while visiting my parents 200 miles away, it shouldn't have affected my wife, whom I haven't been in close contact with since returning home. Nevertheless, she still became sick with the same symptoms.
I was almost on board with terrain theory. My wife usually never gets sick, no matter how many times my son and I get sick. However, there is clearly some kind of transmissible substance being shared since she is also sick this time.
I'm sure there are many other possibilities that could coincidentally result in her sick with the same symptoms within that timeline, but I'm doubtful they are convincing. There is clearly something being passed around, and I would love to know what it really is.
I think you need to undergo a 'paradigm shift' before any of this makes sense. Your first paragraph is really the key point -- transmission from sick to healthy individuals has never been proven, despite many attempts. Therefore the 'virus' model is clearly, unambiguously false. And vaccines are simply a religious tool.
Ah -- but your wife got sick! True! That's happened to me, too, and to everybody. So (a) scientific experiment shows no transmission; (b) your lived experience 'indicates' transmission.
Consider: I've found the bodies of two suicides in my life. One was a friend of a friend, she shot herself in her car. I shook my head, called the police and went on with my life. The other was one of my best friend -- I screamed uncontrollably for 6 hours. My voice gave out, but I kept screaming. But, you see, both situations are physically the same -- a dead body. So why the wildly disparate responses? Well -- the emotional connection.
So why did your wife get sick -- because she saw you sick, and her body decided that it was time to get sick. Why didn't she get sick the other times? Better genetics/diet/health/lifestyle (etc) than you. So the idea here is that (a) people get sick because sometimes the body needs to expel something; (b) if your wife sees you, her body might decide that she should do that too. What things need to be expelled... well, toxins, okay, but also -- you're constantly breathing in dust and sand and smoke. It builds up, and needs to be flushed out from time to time.
This explanation isn't really satisfying to modern 'scientific' people. But remember, 'science' is only lauded because physics and chemistry are so very successful. But the scientific model is really only applicable to those and a handful of other disciplines.
Makes me wonder if events like these are where these sudden outbreaks come from. Inhaling the wrong amount of invisible toxins. Concentrations would vary greatly depending on wind patterns, so several people could be affected severely while others barely notice it.
Yeah, one thing they don't mention is that Lombardy, the place in Italy where the Coronavirus hit first outside China, is the most polluted region of Europe.
Also, when you hear about Swine Flu (2009) or Bird Flu (2023) -- look into the conditions that the animals are kept in. No wonder they're getting sick! They only call them 'flus' because it's a convenient way to keep people frightened of 'viruses'.
Some survived, some don't, really. For those who survived it is all about probabilities. If virus would be deadly it will extinct with amoebas fast. If it is not, it will survive as amoebas Also those amoebas who developed protection against deadly viruses (occasional change in wall protein, f.e.) will survive too.
Taking in account trillions of trillions amoebas who live fast and divide young, this small probabilities moves from region of impossible to region of inevitable.
It is obvious that viruses can't evolve by themselves because they are not alive and could not survive without the cell with that protein fabric inside. But every cell have virus-like particles that transfer parts of DNA/RNA from core to their protein fabrics to grow and divide. billions of years and trillions of trillions primeval bacterias/amoebas/single-cell creatures give a good chance for such thing as virus to be created.
Bacterias are alive, all in all. Concept of virus is that it is a chemical substance, complex, but not able to reproduce by itself. And in simpliest possible bacteria you still have to have protein fabric to build and repair that bacteria. And that fabric have to somehow get instructions of what protein to build and how. And there should be a way to transfer parts of whole DNA to that fabrics. So we again have a ground for a virus creation.
Not all viruses "found" only by PCR tests. Long time ago, when scientists wanted to know the truth, viruses was properly separated, purified and then that purified sample (water and particles of interest only) was used to produce same disease in plants or whatever test species. Separation process clearly point to the average size of studied objects and they was definitely much smaller than any potential bacteria. You can't have bacteria smaller than certain dimentions, because it needs certain parts to exists. estimated virus size was like single bacteria part. And they do not multiply by themselves, so they definitely need a host to reproduce.
There is no better theory of that observed phenomena. Even if methods used for preparation of samples for electron microscopy are questionable, they does not disprove that theory.
Since theory explains everything about viruses, and there are no disproofs, why should we throw it out?
Fact that some bastards use some theory for their scams does not make that theory wrong or evil. It is just a theory, and if it is incorrect, it should be disproven scientifically, and not politically of just because we don't like bastards who base their scam on it.
As for particle physics - imagine that you have a model that perfectly destcribe some part of curve. Every experiment in knwon range validates it. But it is unknown how that curve behave outside that known range. So, everybody is formally free to continue that curve as they wish. Rise it up, bent it down, for any degree. And every such "prediction" is a source of money. Standard model have a strict range. "Randomly continuing curve" is an equivalent of predicting new particle "based on standard model" with certain parameters. Parameters could be validated by actual experiment that will or will not show a particle with predicted parameters. Each prediction of new particle and experiment is a grant money. And nobody care if experiment disprove that random prediction, Publication is not retracted if prediction was proven false. "Scientists with publications" will just roll out a new one and those who give grants will give next grant for "opening new particle" because it sounds cool and it is a "scientist" with publications. You get a business instead of science based on perfectly valid theory.
That problem with commercialising even physics science is perfectly known, but too little scientists risk to talk about that in current circumstances.
With bio sciences things are much worse.
I've dug into this theory a little bit, but it is hard to believe any source these days. For example, terrain theory states that the viruses found via isolation are nothing more than exosomes being misidentified. They also show experiments conducted throughout the early 20th century where scientists could not prove transmission from a sick person to a healthy person, with many attempts.
I can sort of get behind their disproving viruses, but the alternative they present hasn't been realistic, in my experience. I'm currently sick with the nastiest flu I've had since I was a kid. Apparently, I picked it up when I visited my parents. My dad was sick the day after I left. I didn't get any symptoms until 4 days later. My mom, who lives with him, didn't get it until 5 days later. My wife got it 3 days after I got home.
So there seems to be something more than toxins in the local environment causing transmission. If I had been exposed to a toxin while visiting my parents 200 miles away, it shouldn't have affected my wife, whom I haven't been in close contact with since returning home. Nevertheless, she still became sick with the same symptoms.
I was almost on board with terrain theory. My wife usually never gets sick, no matter how many times my son and I get sick. However, there is clearly some kind of transmissible substance being shared since she is also sick this time.
I'm sure there are many other possibilities that could coincidentally result in her sick with the same symptoms within that timeline, but I'm doubtful they are convincing. There is clearly something being passed around, and I would love to know what it really is.
no-cebo placebo effect. be careful, laughing and yawning are "contagious" too
That's a damn good example.
I think you need to undergo a 'paradigm shift' before any of this makes sense. Your first paragraph is really the key point -- transmission from sick to healthy individuals has never been proven, despite many attempts. Therefore the 'virus' model is clearly, unambiguously false. And vaccines are simply a religious tool.
Ah -- but your wife got sick! True! That's happened to me, too, and to everybody. So (a) scientific experiment shows no transmission; (b) your lived experience 'indicates' transmission.
Consider: I've found the bodies of two suicides in my life. One was a friend of a friend, she shot herself in her car. I shook my head, called the police and went on with my life. The other was one of my best friend -- I screamed uncontrollably for 6 hours. My voice gave out, but I kept screaming. But, you see, both situations are physically the same -- a dead body. So why the wildly disparate responses? Well -- the emotional connection.
So why did your wife get sick -- because she saw you sick, and her body decided that it was time to get sick. Why didn't she get sick the other times? Better genetics/diet/health/lifestyle (etc) than you. So the idea here is that (a) people get sick because sometimes the body needs to expel something; (b) if your wife sees you, her body might decide that she should do that too. What things need to be expelled... well, toxins, okay, but also -- you're constantly breathing in dust and sand and smoke. It builds up, and needs to be flushed out from time to time.
This explanation isn't really satisfying to modern 'scientific' people. But remember, 'science' is only lauded because physics and chemistry are so very successful. But the scientific model is really only applicable to those and a handful of other disciplines.
Makes me wonder if events like these are where these sudden outbreaks come from. Inhaling the wrong amount of invisible toxins. Concentrations would vary greatly depending on wind patterns, so several people could be affected severely while others barely notice it.
Yeah, one thing they don't mention is that Lombardy, the place in Italy where the Coronavirus hit first outside China, is the most polluted region of Europe.
Also, when you hear about Swine Flu (2009) or Bird Flu (2023) -- look into the conditions that the animals are kept in. No wonder they're getting sick! They only call them 'flus' because it's a convenient way to keep people frightened of 'viruses'.