THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:41 am

Thanks for the compliments heniek1812.

A short recap:

On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.”

In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.

The six publications are:

1.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.


2.
Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85

3.
Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

4.
Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.

5.
Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.

6.
Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.


Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.

(text taken from https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/virus-trial.htm, links are mine) I am still missing the second and third articles that were submitted, I only found their abstracts, while for the rest I found the full article. I commented already on article 1 and 6, the next one I will comment on is 4.

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:07 pm

Hi Seneca

I assume you have access to research paper DB-s.

2nd paper is titled in this way,

STUDIES ON THE RATE OF MULTIPLICATION OF MEASLES VIRUS IN RHESUS MONKEY KIDNEY CELL CULTURES
Authors: Viggo Bech
DOI: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1958.tb01079.x
Journal: APMIS
Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Year: 1958

In this paper I see the following,
R E F E R E N C E S
1 . Bech, Viggo & von Magnus, Preben: Acta path. et microbiol. Scandinav., 42: 75-
2. Rech, Viggo: Acta path. et microbiol. Scandinav., 4 2 : 86-96,1958.
3. Enders, John F.: Proc. S o c . Exper. Biol. & Med., 83: 100, 1953.
4. Enders, John F . & Peebles, T . C . : Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. & Med., 86: 277-286,1954.
5. Rustigian, Robert, Johnston, Paul & Reihart, Hel’en: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. &
85, 1958.

For the 3rd one I found this that fits the description and the year,
Title: Mutations in Conserved Domain I of the Sendai Virus L Polymerase Protein Uncouple Transcription and Replication
Authors: R. CHANDRIKA; SANDRA M. HORIKAMI; SHERIN SMALLWOOD; SUE A. MOYER
DOI: 10.1006/viro.1995.0008
Journal: Virology
Publisher: Elsevier Science
Year: 1995
My guess is that the titles are not complete. I used gen lib rus ec/scimag/?q=Horikami+moyer to look for them with TOR.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:05 pm

So about the fourth article : Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.

They used "HeLa cells" (cells grown from tumor cells) and while starving them for 90 minutes inoculated them with the "Edmonston strain" that I mentioned when discussing article 4 (that was also the basis for the measles vaccine). They scraped some cells off at different times, centrifuged them, treated them chemically and them examined them with microscopy. Like Stefan Lanka wrote in his "DISMANTLING THE VIRUS THEORY" paper, " the authors did not apply the standard isolation technique for viruses, i.e. the density gradient centrifugation". However, this time "Control preparations of uninocolated HeLa cells were examined in a similar manner"! That will be interesting but why similar instead of the same?
They show photographs which they claim are electron microscope images showing viruses replicating inside cells and even "budding" from the cell surface. How did they know they are seeing viruses? Well, in a few specimens the cells were treated even more brutally: "infected" (and probably starved) for 72 hours, freezed and thawed 6 times, centrifuged for more than 2 hours and mixed with phosphotungstic acid for "negative staining". Under the electron microscope they claimed they saw "measles viruses" of different sizes.

Image
Image

They also saw things that they interpreted as "Disrupted measles particle" (second picture), so the long things that were sticking out of them had to be its "helical nucleocapsid". Since these were similar in shape and size as what they saw in the cells, these must have been from replicating viruses. I am thinking that if you really want to see something and you look hard enough you will see it. But what did they see in the control preparations that they examined? Well, strangely that is never mentioned. Maybe they just forgot. Or maybe they saw similar things which was just too inconvenient. I don't know.

So my conclusion is the same as for the sixth article: they are measuring diameters but nowhere in the article is there any proof that what they measured was really the Measles Virus or that such a thing exists. So for the prize this article is also worthless.

For now the score is: Stefan Lanka 3, David Bardens 0 with 3 more to go.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:08 pm

This was posted in the Coronavirus topic, I think it is also relevant here.
anonjedi2 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:31 am
CDC claims to have "isolated" the virus. Is this true?

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/ ... I0fOc0Bz-M
Here is the photo they claim shows viruses (not isolated).
Image

I was already wondering if what they see as viruses emerging from cells is in fact normal apoptosis, programmed self destruction of cells that are no longer needed.

Image

Before apoptosis, the cell DNA is fragmented. Cell constituents, including DNA, are packed in membranes to make the cleanup after easier. These are called "apoptic" bodies. Just like when before destroying a house everything is put into boxes or sacks and moved outside.

The "sacks" surrounding the virus on the CDC photo look very similar to the membrane of the cell, yet I think they claim the first is made from proteins, while the second is made up of phospholipids, a big difference. I would guess they are apoptic bodies.

I have been looking for photographs of normal apoptosis, but I couldn't find them yet.

Image

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:41 pm

Seneca wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:05 pm
So about the fourth article : Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.

They show photographs which they claim are electron microscope images showing viruses replicating inside cells and even "budding" from the cell surface. How did they know they are seeing viruses? Well, in a few specimens the cells were treated even more brutally: "infected" (and probably starved) for 72 hours, freezed and thawed 6 times, centrifuged for more than 2 hours and mixed with phosphotungstic acid for "negative staining". Under the electron microscope they claimed they saw "measles viruses" of different sizes.
"freezed and thawed 6 times" - first thing that poped into my head is "breakage". Heat-freeze cycling is notorious for damaging organic matter. But I'm just an engineer who doesn't fool with that when in the mountains. ;)

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:46 pm

Seneca wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:08 pm
This was posted in the Coronavirus topic, I think it is also relevant here.
anonjedi2 wrote:
Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:31 am

I was already wondering if what they see as viruses emerging from cells is in fact normal apoptosis, programmed self destruction of cells that are no longer needed.

Image

Before apoptosis, the cell DNA is fragmented. Cell constituents, including DNA, are packed in membranes to make the cleanup after easier. These are called "apoptic" bodies. Just like when before destroying a house everything is put into boxes or sacks and moved outside.

The "sacks" surrounding the virus on the CDC photo look very similar to the membrane of the cell, yet I think they claim the first is made from proteins, while the second is made up of phospholipids, a big difference. I would guess they are apoptic bodies.

I have been looking for photographs of normal apoptosis, but I couldn't find them yet.
So that is how garbage collection occurs in the body when cells die. Very interesting. I had no problem understanding that Prof. Seneca. Thank You for the lecture. :D

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:42 pm

heniek1812 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:46 pm
So that is how garbage collection occurs in the body when cells die. Very interesting. I had no problem understanding that Prof. Seneca. Thank You for the lecture. :D
:lol:
Keep in mind this is not the only way in which cells die. When the death of the cell is not planned it is called cell necrosis, which is much more messy.

Here is another picture from the 4th paper I was discussing.
Image
"FIG. 11. Spherical and pleomorphic particles at the free surface of the infected cell. Nucleocapsid stands can be seen in the particles. X 44,600."

We are supposed to see budding Measles viruses because they contain "nucleocapsids".


Compare this to this series of images showing apoptosis of prostate cancer cells. No viruses were harmed during the filming.

Image

Could it really be that simple?

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:50 am

Seneca wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:42 pm
heniek1812 wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:46 pm
So that is how garbage collection occurs in the body when cells die. Very interesting. I had no problem understanding that Prof. Seneca. Thank You for the lecture. :D
:lol:
Keep in mind this is not the only way in which cells die. When the death of the cell is not planned it is called cell necrosis, which is much more messy.

Could it really be that simple?
I'm deleting elements of the comment to make the page a bit more compact. Hope there is no offense to doing that.

Excellent information Seneca !!!

I am still curious about what we know on that cellular level as to what happens when you cycle these tiny things through freeze-unfreeze treatment. All is well ? Has this been checked ? Freeze a cucumber and unfreeze it and the two are not the same ;)

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:42 am

heniek1812 wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:50 am

I'm deleting elements of the comment to make the page a bit more compact. Hope there is no offense to doing that.
None taken, that is what I usually do, even if it takes some more time.
heniek1812 wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:50 am
I am still curious about what we know on that cellular level as to what happens when you cycle these tiny things through freeze-unfreeze treatment. All is well ? Has this been checked ? Freeze a cucumber and unfreeze it and the two are not the same ;)
As for the freezing and thawing. It is not explained why they do it and they don't use any controls to see what this does to cells without "viruses". You are right it will probably lead to a lot of breaking. They could say they wanted to break the "viruses" open so that they could take a better look at the "nucleocapsids" inside. But the more the cells are broken, the more chance they have to find something that looked liked what they wanted to find.

I have finished the next article, will post my comments.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:55 pm

Today I looked at the fifth article submitted by Barden of my list: Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.

(In Stefan Lanka's "Dismantling The virus Theory" paper this is the fourth article)

The article is mostly about measuring its RNA but they claim also to have purified and measured the measles virus itself (using some kind of density gradient centrifugation). The purification process is just described in this one sentence: "Virus was purified from the supernatant pool by the sucrose and potassium tartrate gradient method of Tyrrell & Norrby (1978)." maybe that is why Stefan Lanka seems to have overlooked this.

The following sentence is the only way in which they report on the measurements on the virus:
"Electron micrographs of negatively stained purified measles virions revealed a typical pleomorphic range of particle sizes (300 to 1000 nm) similar to that observed by Nakai et al. (1969) and Miller & Raine (1979), who examined thin sections of embedded virus-infected cells and purified virions, respectively."

No table with measurements, no average, not even the number of measurements they made. I checked to see if they have published that in another article but couldn't find it. They didn't mention in the abstract. Even when it was not their primary goals, I think it is all very strange considering all the work they and resources they would have spent (I know someone who studied virology in the nineties, she didn't find it weird that she never had seen a virus under the microscope because "that is really expensive".) If they didn't want to publish the results they could just as well used the numbers from the literature.

From all the viruses they measured, this is the only picture of a "virus" they give.

Image
Fig. 3(a) shows an intermediate-size particle of approximately 500 nm diameter on which the external glycoprotein spikes are clearly visible. In this instance, the negative stain has also penetrated into the interior, revealing an enclosed amount of loosely coiled nucleoprotein material greatly in excess of that present in a single nucleocapsid filament (Fig. 3 b).

Even if they really did some measurements under the microscope, there is no proof whatsoever that this was the measles virus or that it even exists. The RNA measurements (length, weight) also prove nothing.
For now the score is: Stefan Lanka 4, David Bardens 0 with 2 more to go.

Some more thoughts:
This time they used the "LEC strain of measles virus", originally isolated from the brain of a child with SSPE. From Wikipedia: "Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE)—also known as Dawson disease—is a rare form of chronic progressive brain inflammation caused by slow infection with certain defective strains of hypermutated measles virus." The condition primarily affects children, teens, and young adults. It has been estimated that about 1 in 10,000 people who get measles will eventually develop SSPE.

So this is one of those diseases they use to scare parents into getting their child the measles vaccine. If only 1 in 10.000 people with measles gets SSPE and this number would be even much smaller when we would consider everybody carrying the "Measles Virus", I wonder how they proved this and would suggest they start looking for a more likely cause for this disease.

The authors of the study wanted "a reliable value for the molecular weight of the RNA" of the Measles Virus, so they decided to use as a source a patient with a disease caused by certain defective strains of hypermutated measles virus??

And what is this: "To estimate the length of 'intact' measles RNA, an average for all molecules whose lengths were between 9500 and 10500 D.U.(=digitizer unit) was calculated."? With no justification of why they used these numbers, they used only 17 measured lengths out of 160. Did they want their numbers to conform to earlier measurements? Because they came up with a molecular weight of 5.2 x (+- 0.1) x 10 6 while a study from a year earlier, Tucker et al. (1983), also reported a value of 5.2 × 10 6.

And what about this: "Interestingly enough, examination of the histogram of Fig. 2, which represents a population of the longest measles RNA molecules found in several different preparations, shows a median value of approx. 8500 digitizer units(D.U.). This is equivalent to a molecular weight of about 4.6 x 10 6, and should this population of molecules have been subjected to gel electrophoresis one would predict that a band of average molecular weight about 4.6 × 10 6 would be obtained, in agreement with the molecular weight determined by Baczko et al. (1983). [which was 4.5 x 10 6]" ?
Again what they consider "the longest measles RNA molecules" here is arbitrary, but now different than before, no justification is given why. It seems they really wanted to reproduce the number of the other paper.

Let me get this straight: they use the same set of measurements, but different numbers of them and different statistical means (first the average and then the median), to confirm 2 different values found in recent papers.

Despite this creativity, the study shows a big variation in the length and weight of this "measles virus RNA", both in this study and between studies. I would think this is normal considering the range in size of the "viruses"and the different diseases they are supposed to cause, but the authors seem to find this problematic.

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:25 pm

Seneca wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:42 am
heniek1812 wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:50 am

I'm deleting elements of the comment to make the page a bit more compact. Hope there is no offense to doing that.
None taken, that is what I usually do, even if it takes some more time.
heniek1812 wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:50 am
I am still curious about what we know on that cellular level as to what happens when you cycle these tiny things through freeze-unfreeze treatment. All is well ? Has this been checked ? Freeze a cucumber and unfreeze it and the two are not the same ;)
As for the freezing and thawing. It is not explained why they do it and they don't use any controls to see what this does to cells without "viruses". You are right it will probably lead to a lot of breaking. They could say they wanted to break the "viruses" open so that they could take a better look at the "nucleocapsids" inside. But the more the cells are broken, the more chance they have to find something that looked liked what they wanted to find.

I have finished the next article, will post my comments.
Super on the first :D

On the second point , when I read that they cycled freeze-thaw 6 times that rang bells in my head.
Image
Mind you this image is of soil grains but note image in that sequence to the right ;)

Even on the cell level crystals must (I assume) be forming from freezing the organic liquids which then leads to volume changes with changing temperature. Different liquid composition leads to different types of crystals. Often such changes lead to permanent damage (in other phenomena called hysteresis). The substances does not come back to its original state.

This thesis work alludes to this,
https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/ ... tering.pdf
I read the above work here and there and noticed that another effect occurs when you freeze-thaw. Dehydration. You are in effect squeezing out liquids from one place to another when going between such extreme temperatures (soggy cucumber when frozen and then thawed). The effect seen above is on a macro scale but perhaps something similar is happening on the cell level.

Here is an interesting paper that gets close to what I am suggesting (damage to cell),
https://aem.asm.org/content/84/12/e00406-18

If we see damage effects macro scale then I would assume it might be happening on the micro-scale. I'm guessing because I'm just a macro-scale type of guy :lol:

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:43 pm

Seneca wrote:
Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:55 pm
Today I looked at the fifth article submitted by Barden of my list: Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.

(In Stefan Lanka's "Dismantling The virus Theory" paper this is the fourth article)

The article is mostly about measuring its RNA but they claim also to have purified and measured the measles virus itself (using some kind of density gradient centrifugation). The purification process is just described in this one sentence: "Virus was purified from the supernatant pool by the sucrose and potassium tartrate gradient method of Tyrrell & Norrby (1978)." maybe that is why Stefan Lanka seems to have overlooked this.
Here is what I learned about this process from Jon Rappaport's article,
The Chinese virus, HIV, and a stranger on a train
by Jon Rappoport
February 4, 2020
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
Yes, it is very strange not to explain what exactly was done so that others could repeat the proceedure that they used. Without that it could all be "fake science". :o
https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=44899

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:11 am

This is all very interesting academically but it doesn't say much about reality (as I see it), sorry, chaps. There always seems to be a point where one aspect (genes, for example), relies on the notion of DNA (for example). Without one, the other doesn't work as a hypothesis.

PROCESSES

There is first the literature of knowledge and secondly, the literature of power. The function of the first is –to teach; the second is -to move: the first is the rudder, the second an oar or a sail. The first speaks to the mere discursive understanding; the second speaks ultimately, it may happen, to the higher understanding of reason.

Thomas de Quincey (1785-1859)
Essays on the Poets: Pope

**********

Collins English Dictionary defines:
Process: continued forward movement; lapse (of time); a series of actions or measures; a method of operation; a series of changes as of growth or decay…

**********

I would define a process as transforming something into something else (for example grains of sand into a brick by whatever means available).

It has been said that nothing can be created or destroyed. If such is the case, then transformation must be the only answer. Transforming is a process. A process as the above definition states is ‘a series of changes as of growth or decay’. This means a constant movement between growth or decay, or as most likely presented, birth and death. However ‘birth’ and ‘death’ are considered as entities within themselves, never extending beyond the creation and the reverse.
Both ‘birth’ and ‘death’ are mere processes of the biosphere, which is the medium in which we are able to ‘give’ birth’ (and endure ‘death’) and after a period (about which we can know nothing at all) a transformation occurs wherein we devolve back into the ‘earth’ from which we came. This is a constant and continual arrangement (if you will) between ‘being here’ and ‘not being here’.

There can be no exact point at which we might claim ‘birth’ or ‘death’, since it is the process by which all bio-spherical ‘organisms’, be them flora or fauna, exist (or do not exist) in a particular form on this ‘planet’. The notion of ‘time’ is a construct, not an actuality as it has no shape or form.

I am reminded of the expression: reductio ad absurdum: (a reduction to an absurdity; the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating that its logical conclusion is absurd).

Absurd is defined as: Inconsistent with Common Sense.
‘Common sense’ is that which is agreed by others, such as (in simple), if the suns shines, we get ‘warm’ and so forth.
‘Nothing’ (or no ‘thing’) cannot be practically demonstrated since there is nothing (or no ‘thing’) to demonstrate. What we call a ‘thing’ (noun or name for something) can only be demonstrated with sensual apparatuses particular to us as individuals. Lack of a particular ‘sense’ (for example, deafness, (which cannot resolve a sound), or blindness (which cannot resolve a colour) makes the notion of sound (or colour resolution) either something else, or nothing at all.

It is a useful tool only when it is relative to a certain situation or situations which might be agreed upon with others who work on a similar basis and have already agreed on the terms of their correspondence, however that is achieved.Thus, we must observe that in toto everything is connected to everything else and that nothing is separate from anything else. Separate ‘entities’ cannot exist, as they must always (in some way) be connected.

We can, therefore, not have separate ‘entities’ only a transformation between one and the other by whatever means.
That transformation is the only way to get from one thing to any other. Again, ‘Entities’ do not exist as such, they are only a passage (however accomplished) between one ‘state’ and another. Yet again, there can be no ‘absolutes’, only a transformation between one state (whatever that is) and another, however accomplished and understood by others with different sensual apparatuses.

It may be a convenience (or contrivance) to particulate our world. It may have uses for certain things but we must be very aware that conceiving of such is not a ‘truth’. That is, a truth is not an object that can be held in one’s hands. It is a notion (or in common parlance, idea). A notion must be realised as just that, not an actuality or physical object. We may be able to process an idea (how to make a brick from some sand, for example) but we can never exactly understand how that process is accomplished, however ‘clever’ we think we are.

Relying upon particulates (atoms, germs, viruses for example), however, as an explanation of processes is dangerous ground, since it insists upon them as actualities when they do not exist as specific entities. Discrete ‘particles’ cannot be explained in terms of continuous transformation.

Enter the world of digital versus analogue. Digital is bits, whereas analogue is continuous. Nature is continuous, not digital. The difference is that analogue is a continuous process without interruption. Digital is interruption of an analogue and loses the connection between one piece of ‘data’ (for example) and another. In simple, a digital musical recording can never be the same as an analogue since the brain (analogue) cannot process the digital signal and reproduce the analogue (or whole) signal.

The best example of a process is water. Water cannot be broken down into discrete ‘particles’. It can only be processed from one ‘state’ to another, from a mist to a raging torrent (for example). It is continuously changing backwards and forwards depending upon its situation at any one given ‘moment’. A ‘moment’ is merely a digital version of continuous ‘time’. To claim it is composed of ‘elements’ is to deny its continuous movement from the one ‘state’ to another, since the elements themselves are analogue as well, one being ‘oxygen’ (whatever that is) and two being ‘hydrogen’ (whatever that is).

It is my contention, therefore, that particulate matter such as genes, DNA/RNA, germs, viruses do not and cannot exist independently but are continuous processes and cannot be singled out, whatever the alleged method of extraction might be used (or not used). How can you remove something from a living body and study it as though it were part of a living jig-saw puzzle? Doesn’t water not require outside influences to change its form? We can see changes in a flowering plant but how can we actually describe the process?
As I have said before, naming something does not tell us what it is and stop-motion is not a reality.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:31 am

sharpstuff wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:11 am
This is all very interesting academically but it doesn't say much about reality (as I see it), sorry, chaps.
That is OK, but the reality we are dealing with here is that there are people who believe in viruses that can move from one person to another and kill them. People who call themselves scientists, educators, leaders, health experts... This "knowledge" enables them to devise tests, invent "cures", "vaccines".

I am trying to show they are wrong even by their own standards.
sharpstuff wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:11 am
It is my contention, therefore, that particulate matter such as genes, DNA/RNA, germs, viruses do not and cannot exist independently but are continuous processes and cannot be singled out, whatever the alleged method of extraction might be used (or not used). How can you remove something from a living body and study it as though it were part of a living jig-saw puzzle? Doesn’t water not require outside influences to change its form? We can see changes in a flowering plant but how can we actually describe the process?
As I have said before, naming something does not tell us what it is and stop-motion is not a reality.
That is a good point.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:43 am

For the second paper submitted for the prize Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85 I only found the abstract.

I tried the Russan site that you sent me, heniek1812, but the article there "STUDIES ON THE RATE OF MULTIPLICATION OF MEASLES VIRUS IN RHESUS MONKEY KIDNEY CELL CULTURES" is not the right one.

So here is the abstract:
Abstract : By the inoculation of cultures of trypsinized monkey kidney tissue, measles virus was recovered from throat swabs or washings of 5 out of 9 patients examined within 24 hours of the onset of the rash and from the heparinized blood of 1 of 3 patients; the virus could not be isolated from sera collected from 5 patients within 24 hours of the onset of the rash. Characteristic cell changes were produced; after a few days syncytia appeared, later increasing in size and becoming vacuolated. Sera taken from 4 patients 9-37 days after the onset of the rash fixed complement in titres up to 256 with the supernatant fluids of tissue cultures infected with 3 of the isolated strains of virus. 2 rhesus monkeys inoculated intranasally and orally with tissue culture virus, developed complement-fixing antibody in a titre of 256, and 1 developed a transient generalized morbil-liform exanthem on the 11th day after infection.
D. J. Bauer.
I recently learned that understanding abstracts is actually more difficult than understanding the whole article. However the last sentence here is the most important and is quite understandable after looking up some words.

So one of 2 rhesus monkeys inoculated with the "virus" got a rash that looked like measles after 11 days. This is the closest to a "proof" of the existence of the Measles virus that I see so far. But there are a lot of questions that can be asked. They don't call it measles, does that mean it didn't have any of the important symptoms? From Wikipedia:
"Clinical diagnosis of measles requires a history of fever of at least three days, with at least one of the following symptoms: cough, coryza [=Rhinitis, inflammation of the nose], or conjunctivitis. Observation of Koplik's spots is also diagnostic. "

Where was the rash located? Have other potential causes of the rash been ruled out? For example according to the German New Medicine, this kind of rash appears during the healing phase of a separation conflict. A separation conflict can be experienced after a loss of physical contact (for example the mother) but it can also be experienced as wanting to separate from someone and something. The place on the body where the rash appears can give more information.
Where there any controls?

Even if we would suppose all these questions were properly addressed in the paper, just one case is not enough to prove anything. As they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this doesn't come close. I am not arguing for more animal testing, they should be more creative. If I was paid well enough and I would have enough information about what they would inject, I wouldn't mind volunteering for a double blind study.

So the score is now Stefan Lanka 5, David Bardens 0 with 1 more to go.

However I am a bit disappointed in the way Stefan Lanka addresses this study in his "Dismantling the virus theory" paper:
The second paper presented by the claimant in the measles trial was published in 1959 and, for the reasons presented above, the authors concluded that the technique introduced by Enders was not appropriate for the isolation of a virus. This rebuttal is not only NOT being discussed by all the other researchers, but it is being ignored.
This is all he wrote about that paper. I can't confirm it since I can't read the paper, but since he ignores the results from the paper I call this a case of cherry picking.

Post Reply