[NUKELIES]

voerioc wrote: They are simply cellular debris, or just artifacts.

I used to think that "viruses" were self-replicating DNA, and as per FirstClassSkeptic's reference to accelerated genetic recombination, I think I was half-right.

Voerioc is right on bordering on genius with the following quote, and it deserves repeating:

About viruses, I think they simply don't exist. They are simply cellular debris, or just artifacts.

They have been invented during the great hysteria about pathogenic germs. Some "scientists" wanted to prove that some illnesses were caused by pathogenic germs. But they couldn't find any. So, they invented the concept of viruses. If they couldn't find them, it was because they were too small.

In order to "prove" that those illnesses were indeed caused by pathogenic germs, they took some soup of cells from a sick animal, and injected it directly into the brain of other animals. What an extraordinary thing, those animals began to become sick and even to die. They did the same thing with plants. The problem is that plants are very sensitive to injections. So, it was easy to reproduce again and again the so called infection, and thus "prove" that there was a contagion.

After that, they were obliged to maintain the lie. So, when electronic microscopes where invented, they had to find viruses with it. Otherwise, all virologists would have been fired. The problem is, you can't make the difference between cellular debris and viruses with electronic microscopy. And, as has stated rerevisionist, because of the limitations of this technique, it is perfectly possible that all those particles seen with EM are pure artifacts.

Check out the inane truth behind the word 'virus':

ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting the venom of a snake): from Latin, literally ‘slimy liquid, poison.’ The earlier medical sense, superseded by the current use as a result of improved scientific understanding, was ‘a substance produced in the body as the result of disease, esp. one that is capable of infecting others with the same disease.’

The last part "a substance produced in the body a the result of disease." backs up the accelerated genetic recombination theory. I think this also describes cancer as well, and explains why a juice fast can allow the body to redirect energy usually used on digestion to general bodily repair, hence "curing" cancer.

virus |'vir?s|
noun
1 an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host: [ as modifier ] : a virus infection.

Perhaps it can only multiply within the living cells of a host because it is part of the cell.

[rerevisionist]

Harold Hillman says the 'protein coat' of viruses is an artefact. These blurry areas present as the same thickness, which couldn't happen for 3-D geometry reasons if the 'coats' are genuine. However, he never studied viruses in great detail.

[rerevisionist]

@ voerioc, reference to 4th December 2011 - I was a bit shocked at your dismissal of Ross and his mosquito-bites inducing malaria. But, come to think of it, you're right to regard the experiment as flawed (assuming it took place). It would need two sets of mosquitoes, one set infected, the other not; and several recipients - the actual numbers would determine how firmly the conclusions were based. Also there would need to be some definition of what was meant by 'malaria'.

Here's another thing though that occurred to me, viz what is your revisionist interpretation of penicillin? There are (I've been told) glowing accounts of roomfuls of ill patients being completely cured by penicillin, in about 1945-ish. What's the story there?

[voerioc]

About complete cure of malaria by penicillin, it's all about diagnosis. As symptoms of malaria are not specific (in fact, they are just flue symptoms), you can adapt the diagnosis as you want. When people are diagnosed with malaria, a cold or a flue is not a cold or a flue anymore. It's malaria. And when people have been treated with penicillin, if they have a fever, it's not malaria anymore. It's a cold or a flue.

About the immediate effect of the penicillin, you have drugs which causes a drop of temperature. This is what penicillin does.

There is also the fact that what has caused the problem is often an excess of efforts, heat, and thus dehydration. So, as people diagnosed with malaria are put in an hospital where they are rehydrated and stay calm, this part of the problem is also resolved.

[rerevisionist]

Penicillin was introduced as a cure for gonorrhea and syphilis, I believe, and for anything caused - or supposedly caused - by bacteria, since penicillin killed (most?) agar-grown bacterial cultures. (Malaria was/is supposed to have parasites in red blood cells, and these must be unaffected by penicillin, as otherwise why have special anti-malarial drugs?)

What's your view of gonorrhea and syphilis (and chlamydia etc)?

[voerioc]

What's your view of gonorrhea and syphilis (and chlamydia etc)?

By chance, I recently found an explanation about the chancre. Before that, I only had explanation for the rash (second phase of the disease), and what happened after (the third phase).

It's here : https://contagionmyth dot com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27

Thinking about syphilis and other STDs, I have got this idea.

Maybe cases of syphilis and other STDs have decreased so much because of the pill and better condoms. With the pill, other contraceptive methods were abandoned. And maybe it was them which were providing such a number of cases. I think especially about spermicides. There were often used before the pill. But, the problem is they often contained chemical compounds which were irritating. Thus, many people were getting irritation on the penis (the chancre). So, they were given a diagnosis of syphilis. And then, they were treated with dangerous drugs which gave them skin rash.

With the pill, spermicides weren't used anymore. Then, the number of chancres has begun to plummet. Maybe condoms from de 19th and the beginning of the 20th century were also irritating, and those from after WWII were it less. And maybe the modern spermicides are also less irritating.

So, as chancres represent the main number of syphilis cases, without them, there is no syphilis any more.

Of course, the introduction of antibiotics has certainly played a role too. Because then, with the diminution of the number of cases, a chancre was no more considered inevitably as a STD case. Suddenly, it could be considered only as a simple irritation. It's like with vaccines. If someone is vaccinated against measles, but gets a skin rash, in the mind of the doctor, it can't be measles (since the guy is vaccinated). So, it's of course something else, like a simple skin rash, or an allergy.

About the second phase, I think the rash was in fact caused mostly by medical drugs. Doctors already used tons of very dangerous drugs long before the modern era : quicksilver, arsenic, plants, etc, etc... Some of them caused rashes ; and those rashes were considered as a symptoms of the illness. But in fact, for most cases, during the great hysteria about syphilis (18th and 19th centuries) they didn't even need a chancre or a skin rash. Symptoms from the third phase were sufficient to make a diagnosis of syphilis.

And the hysteria about syphilis was so great at this time that they saw syphilis everywhere. So, symptoms of the third phase were very multiple. It could be heart problems, liver problems, digestive, renal, laryngeal, ocular or psychiatric problems. It was so multiple that nearly everything could be syphilis at that time. Pure rubbish. But, pure rubbish or not, it was therefore very easy to invent tons of cases. And this, even without having got symptoms of the first and second phase. So, during the great hysteria about syphilis, for most of the cases, the specific symptoms of the first and second phases were not even needed (and we have seen that even them are not so specific). Thus, for most cases, syphilis was a pure intellectual construction, with nothing specific behind.

And, of course, as most other bacterial STDs have quite the same symptoms, the problem is the same than for syphilis. The analysis made for syphilis is valid also for those other STDs.

[rerevisionist]

@voerioc - very good answer on syphilis! Good point about sores. And, yes, they used mercury compounds to treat it. There's a striking analogy with AZT used to 'treat' 'AIDS'.

However you haven't really answered the point about penicillin. Think of pus. If you injure yourself - e.g. if a nail penterates your foot - there is certainly some sort of effect - the area may develop a yellow pus-filled area, which can be squeezed out or otherwise removed. Made up apparently of white cells which had been doing their cleaning-up. This is the sort of thing that penicillin clears up very quickly. Or - used to clear up very quickly; I don't know if you believe 'superbugs' exist - they may just be a result of using uneducated immigrants to save money cleaning in hospitals.

[voerioc]

@voerioc - very good answer on syphilis! Good point about sores. And, yes, they used mercury compounds to treat it. There's a striking analogy with AZT used to 'treat' 'AIDS'.

However you haven't really answered the point about penicillin. Think of pus. If you injure yourself - e.g. if a nail penetrates your foot - there is certainly some sort of effect - the area may develop a yellow pus-filled area, which can be squeezed out or otherwise removed. Made up apparently of white cells which had been doing their cleaning-up. This is the sort of thing that penicillin clears up very quickly. Or - used to clear up very quickly; I don't know if you believe 'superbugs' exist - they may just be a result of using uneducated immigrants to save money cleaning in hospitals.

Thanks.

About penicillin, maybe I didn't understand perfectly well the question. You want to know the reason why antibiotics had a sort of Lazarus effect on many diseases ? Is that right ?

About the specific point of pus, I didn't know about this kind of effect. But it could be explain by the fact that this kind of drugs dry the skin (this is why they are also used against Acne). So, of course, it is possible that the pus would be less produced.

I don't believe in superbugs. I remember when I was younger, at the beginning of the 80's. Scientists began to try to frighten us about the mutating microbes. They said that already 20 % of pathogenic microbes where already resistant to most usual antibiotics. As I believed in orthodox medical science, I was afraid. Already 20 % ?! We were all gonna die. Old contagious diseases would strike back. But we didn't die and old diseases didn't strike back. And 10 years later, the same thing was said. The problem was that the percentage of resistant microbes was still 20 %. How could it be still 20 % ? It was absurd. It should have been 30 or 40 %. But no, it was still 20 %. And in 2000, it was still 20 %.

Another ridiculous point was that, in rich countries, the resistance was limited to hospitals. Even in the early 80's, this kind of fact was quite ridiculous. But in 2000, it was definitively ridiculous. How could the resistance be limited to hospitals, since we are talking about microbes ? It should spread everywhere and the resistance should then be encountered in the whole world. You can notice that for diseases affecting poor people in poor countries, the resistance isn't limited to hospital. Another discrepancy.

My opinion is that it is limited to hospitals and to 20 % of the cases because the problem is surgical operations and hospitalizations. Some of them are very painful for the body. So, people can be sick during quite a long time. They can even die. Thus, instead of saying that it's the surgery itself which causes the problems, doctors say it's superbugs. Quite convenient. This is why you don't encounter superbugs outside the hospitals. And if the problem is encountered only in 20 % of cases, it's because only an average of 20 % of the surgical operations and hospitalizations poses a problem.

Of course, you can check if microbes are resistant or not on a culture where you put an antibiotic. But you can think that those kinds of control aren't made so often. Most of the time they must just observe that the guy is still sick. And then, they say it's a superbug. And even if it was made quite often, you must have a some states of development where bugs are a little bit more resistant to antibiotics. It may also depend on the method of culture itself. So, you can find quite often resistant microbes. So, probably that, mixing both techniques (just observation, and checking cultures of bacterias), they find this average percentage of 20 %. We can also imagine that they adjust the rate of resistance found in microbes cultures on the rate of resistance found in people in the hospital. If they found 80 % of resistance to antibiotics in cultures, there would be a little contradiction with what is found in hospitals.

[rerevisionist]

Voerioc - you're making a terrifically good case!

[voerioc]

Thanks a lot,

About the Lazarus effect on people when antibiotics were introduced, I think there is two causes for that.

1) The antibiotics themselves. I think that many diseases are caused by a problem of low rate of cortisol. Cortisol rate is a MAJOR health problem. A low cortisol rate causes loss of appetite, so loss of weight ; dehydration in the cells of the center of the body, thus cough ; dilation of blood vessels, so low blood tension, and thus loss of energy, and many other problems. Antibiotics increase the cortisol rate. And the effects of a high cortisol rate are the opposite of those of a low rate. So, suddenly, people had much more energy (better blood pressure), had more appetite and had more water in the cells of the trunk, so their weight increased, and if they had a cough, it disappeared because of the better hydration of the trunk. Thus, suddenly, you had a sort of Lazarus effect with some diseases.

2) Introduction of perfusion. Some diseases are caused by a problem of dehydration. Perfusions were much more used after 1944, thanks to Baxter society. So, as those people were better hydrated, this had a Lazarus effect on them.

[voerioc]

My opinion is that it is limited to hospitals and to 20 % of the cases because the problem is surgical operations and hospitalizations. Some of them are very painful for the body. So, people can be sick during quite a long time. They can even die. Thus, instead of saying that it's the surgery itself which causes the problems, doctors say it's superbugs. Quite convenient. This is why you don't encounter superbugs outside the hospitals. And if the problem is encountered only in 20 % of cases, it's because only an average of 20 % of the surgical operations and hospitalizations poses a problem.

I forgot to add that drugs are also a cause of this. People take anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, and opiates after those operations. But, doctors won't say health problem are caused by the combining of operations and drugs but by superbugs.

Hospital-acquired illnesses have the same causes of course. However, in this case, doctors recognize sometimes that the problem can come from drugs (but almost never from the combining of operation and drugs). But many times, they will say it's a pathogenic germ acquired during the stay at the hospital.