Mr. Wurst declares, "Viruses exist — but they may act more like messengers than invaders..." How does he know that 'viruses' exist? Does such claim to knowledge not require proof and definition?
There is a lot to agree with in this article that correctly points out no 'virus' has ever been isolated nor tested for chemical makeup nor biological role. Viruses were invented as sexier more fashionable germs, after bacteriology repeatedly failed to demonstrate causation.
There is a breed of sceptic that cannot quite let go of the framework of 'viruses'. Are 'viruses' really exosomes, or messengers from God, or little angels traveling through liquids (huh?) to rescue us? Has anyone ever proven a biological function supposedly performed by an exosome? Or is this another version of imaginative science? Is 'exosome' another fancy name attached to particles someone sees under microscope with no knowledge their nature?
Mr. Wurst informs us that 'viruses' are a piece of genetic material enclosed in protein. How could he or any other imagineer know that when in fact no claimed 'virus particle' has ever been found in sick people, studied, dna rna extracted, protein capsid identified and so forth?
When people adapt the world view of those who have been fully proven wrong, but who insist on controlling debate, the adaptors offer intellectual validation to false ideas, even after remodeling. The pretense is there is a shred of truth in patent nonsense.
Thanks, again Mr. Wurst makes many sound points in his remodeling.
You make valid points. There are particles that have been seen under electron microscopes that don't seem to be organelles and may be "trash cans" taking out debris from cells. But your point is well taken. Is there evidence that they contain mRNA, DNA? It is probable that they do but it would be genetic material stemming from the nucleus and ribosomes within the cell depending on the severity of damage to the cell. Imagine a star ship explosion and the bridge being the nucleus. The clean up crew would take out pieces of the bridge from the damaged ship to cart it away. That of course is not an infectious agent even if it contained genetic material. It makes sense that cells have a clean up mechanism, but it is not evidenced (yet).
Thank you for your kind response Dr. Baxas. I am sure I know much less about this subject than Mr. Wurst, or than you obviously. But still, there is always logic...
One fellow, who claims to be quite sceptical about 'viruses', wrote recently that asserting 'no virus' is a polemical trap, because particles CAN BE SEEN under microscope. I was almost (not quite) struck speechless. Particles are meaningless, no matter how spikey or virusy in appearance, if they've never been isolated and studied to experimentally prove something important about them.
It's like flying pigs...when they finally do capture and study one, we'll know a lot more about them.
I like the idea presented by Mr. Wurst of 'resonance' for which (I have read elsewhere) there seems to be supporting evidence (but nothing like extensive understanding nor proof).
I am never buying that dead viruses come back to life when finding a host. Viruses = fear = taking more deadly actions like vaccinating and taking drugs. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Excellent information thank you very much!
Mr. Wurst declares, "Viruses exist — but they may act more like messengers than invaders..." How does he know that 'viruses' exist? Does such claim to knowledge not require proof and definition?
There is a lot to agree with in this article that correctly points out no 'virus' has ever been isolated nor tested for chemical makeup nor biological role. Viruses were invented as sexier more fashionable germs, after bacteriology repeatedly failed to demonstrate causation.
There is a breed of sceptic that cannot quite let go of the framework of 'viruses'. Are 'viruses' really exosomes, or messengers from God, or little angels traveling through liquids (huh?) to rescue us? Has anyone ever proven a biological function supposedly performed by an exosome? Or is this another version of imaginative science? Is 'exosome' another fancy name attached to particles someone sees under microscope with no knowledge their nature?
Mr. Wurst informs us that 'viruses' are a piece of genetic material enclosed in protein. How could he or any other imagineer know that when in fact no claimed 'virus particle' has ever been found in sick people, studied, dna rna extracted, protein capsid identified and so forth?
When people adapt the world view of those who have been fully proven wrong, but who insist on controlling debate, the adaptors offer intellectual validation to false ideas, even after remodeling. The pretense is there is a shred of truth in patent nonsense.
Thanks, again Mr. Wurst makes many sound points in his remodeling.
You make valid points. There are particles that have been seen under electron microscopes that don't seem to be organelles and may be "trash cans" taking out debris from cells. But your point is well taken. Is there evidence that they contain mRNA, DNA? It is probable that they do but it would be genetic material stemming from the nucleus and ribosomes within the cell depending on the severity of damage to the cell. Imagine a star ship explosion and the bridge being the nucleus. The clean up crew would take out pieces of the bridge from the damaged ship to cart it away. That of course is not an infectious agent even if it contained genetic material. It makes sense that cells have a clean up mechanism, but it is not evidenced (yet).
Thank you for your kind response Dr. Baxas. I am sure I know much less about this subject than Mr. Wurst, or than you obviously. But still, there is always logic...
One fellow, who claims to be quite sceptical about 'viruses', wrote recently that asserting 'no virus' is a polemical trap, because particles CAN BE SEEN under microscope. I was almost (not quite) struck speechless. Particles are meaningless, no matter how spikey or virusy in appearance, if they've never been isolated and studied to experimentally prove something important about them.
It's like flying pigs...when they finally do capture and study one, we'll know a lot more about them.
I like the idea presented by Mr. Wurst of 'resonance' for which (I have read elsewhere) there seems to be supporting evidence (but nothing like extensive understanding nor proof).
I am never buying that dead viruses come back to life when finding a host. Viruses = fear = taking more deadly actions like vaccinating and taking drugs. Wrong, wrong, wrong.