You may think so but the thread is indeed about the existence of all virus’s and asks for a non-partisan study and not merely the results of what is commonly called a virus. To be sure, all research demands an open mind regardless of what circumstances may predetermine one’s “opinions” on a given subject. Thank heaven for open minds and good research otherwise many diseases would still be treated with leeching or burning a witch at the stake. I can readily see what the OP is opening up here and to me it’s a fascinating thought. I looked a little further into the proposition and found that even Ireland’s own Department of Health has refused to designate many maladies thought to have been the result of a virus, a virus. China has outlined their own studies and have given the results via changes in DNA and RNA structures and not by actually viewing the internal workings of what is making said changes. To say that by any other name a rose is still a rose when we’re discussing micro and even quantum biology would be highly neglectful of what it takes to actually be a rose. The common layman may parrot what is thought to be true without being true albeit the results are identical to what one has experienced. Ex. Two people experiencing a broken leg probably did not come from the same accident. Both may have happened from falling out of a tree but now we have to examine if it was the same tree and what kind of tree it was in order for the two maladies to be compared. It is as I wrote, it’s a fascinating concept and I think I’ll have to dwell some more on the subject and crack the books.
Hoot. Did you not post that the OP had posted the same things in other forums? It seems to me you were attacking the poster and not the post. You obviously disagree with the premise so let’s stick with that. Do you know what a virus is? I hate the fact that your friends died since the appearance of CV-19 because a friend lost is something we’ve all had to endure at one time or another and it is indeed terrible. In this case though, having a lost friend isn’t participating in the actual premise but rather the results of your own pre-determined opinion based on a layman version of what you have heard or read.
Again, it was an observation about the posts. " It refutes the OP statements, which he has posted on other sites under different names." What is interesting is that folks are attacking me instead of the information provided in the link. Hmmmmm
No one is attacking you Hoot. You were being corrected and an observation made but certainly not attacked.
Here is a very easy to understand short video that explains about a virus, what it is, and if it is alive or not. Basically, what the person says, is that the virus itself does not exhibit any of the qualities which we use to determine whether something is alive or not. However, the virus DOES exist, even though it is not a life form, and once it invades a living cell, then it can cause that person/ creature to become sick with whatever kind of virus has invaded. He uses the polio-virus as his example. An easy analogy would be when we get a sliver of metal in our skin. The metal is not alive; but when it gets inside of our body, then we have inflammation and probably an infection, and if it is a bad enough infection, a person can even die from this, even though it was caused from a non-living particle.
This whole thread is based on the video "Viral refutation" that has a link provided in the OP. Did any of you watch it in its entirety? Here we have an unknown person, a claimed microbiologist Stefan Lanka that cannot speak English so a girl appearing to be high school age translates for him. This isn't on any medical site. Why? Because it is pure BS and just someone trying to start controversy claiming it is germs that kill, not a mythical thing called a virus. If you are going to post a link, then check it out completely. Does the author have any documented credibility? Posting links you haven't read or studied unless as a joke, is counterproductive to any serious discussion. Why would a microbiologist know more than a virologist that has dedicated their lives to the study of a virus? Viruses are the biggest threat to killing off all life as we know it on earth. They are the new warfare and naturally occurring viruses are purposely mutated in labs. This is fact and documented thousands of times over. As we have seen in the last few years, it is an enemy that is hard to fight. So, now we have a movement to prove that no virus exists and that these organisms are just bacteria or fungi. No scientific proof, just theory that has little to no validity and is propagandized for POLITICAL purposes. It is impossible to discuss viruses scientifically if there is a political motive. This forum with its endless COVID discussions is proof of that.
Corrected? I stand by my posts, and would suggest that I have posted nothing that needs "corrected". Again, no comment about the information in the link I posted? Or are you happy trying to make this about me instead about the facts of viruses?
I might add that virus is a living thing. It is a mutation of a host that can cause inflammation, etc. Just as I said before cancer is a living thing, a mutation of the host and can spread causing all kinds of problems. If a person dies that has cancer or a virus, then the "disease" dies when the host can no longer support it. The problem with a sliver of metal analogy is that the metal doesn't grow using the host as "food." It is the development of a virus or cancer that causes problems. If either dies a quick death, then one without symptoms wouldn't even know they had either. A fair, but not great, comparison, is how sourdough works. If you don't continue to feed the sourdough, it will die. Sourdough has to be made using a combination of flour and water in the right atmosphere. This combination becomes something different than the original flour and will grow and can be kept alive for hundreds of years if fed and kept in the right environment. If you quit feeding your sourdough, it will die. Some people have more success with sourdough than others. Some sourdoughs have short life spans and others don't. Once baked in bread the sourdough is dead, but the bread rose to form the desired loaf before it was killed.
Great discussion points, @Faye Fox . According to the video I posted, he says that while a cancer cell is indeed a living thing, because it is actually a cell, and can mutate; he explains that a virus can’t do any of the things that we consider when deciding if something is a living organism or not. Regardless, once it gets into a human living cell, then it causes damage to the cell, and can cause death. I think that the only way that mankind can stop the spread of this kind of disease is if we do study them more and learn what they are capable of , and why.
Yes, it's a fascinating idea. But dangerous in that it feeds the current anti-science mood of this highly-polarized moment in time. People with little scientific training or understanding will seize on such information and interpret it according to whatever bias they already hold. I was on some political discussion forums back in the late 90's, and am familiar with the anti-vaccine/anti-germ-theory sentiments going around then. Nothing new these days, really, except that the stakes are much higher.
My thought is really simple. In the world of semantics, no matter what it is called or for what reason, the results are the same so it doesn’t matter what the un-educated think in regard to causation. Educated or not, folks just want the truth and want whatever malady they may have cured. If a doctor tells a patient that they have a virus then so be it because it doesn’t change anything other than what the doctor prescribes to treat it. Alas, the thread isn’t about semantics; it’s about possibilities and I for one am fascinated by the premise because it’s worthy of good conversation and study. No one in their right mind would come to a seniors forum looking to find a cure for the present barrage of illnesses ergo simple conversation isn’t hazardous at all but instead an opportunity to quietly converse and crack the books. As a side bar: When I used to lecture and even at the present time when I write to gain interest in study, at one time or another I will or would ask the question: Is Water Wet? Certainly we are nourished by water and over 8,000 people drown in it annually and I’ll guarantee that hundred of thousands slip on it or frozen water each year causing fractures and concussions. But is water itself, wet? Note: I’m not digressing nor asking everyone for a summation regarding water being wet but merely opening the door for further good conversation regarding the OP. It’s a peaceful and a research worthy topic. When I see a question mark at the end of the title it is asking a question. In this case, whether virus’s truly exist or can we look deeper into that world and see any possible differences between what we think to be a virus versus some of the maladies that are said to be started by a virus. As it is, it is again a II Tim. 2:15 moment and sometime later tonight I will probably do as I said and study a few peer reviewed papers on the subject and be able to present a better view on the subject.
Why are you so freaking hostile? It’s a simple subject with a lot of different outcomes which makes it interesting and has nothing to do with your personal circumstances or experience. Now, let us chat about your link. What have you personally gotten from it? Does it compare what truly constitutes a virus versus that of microbial or non-binary / binary substances which too can cause serious damage to living cells and even death? What are the definitive markers that make your link more valid than any other that I might be able to produce to refute it? Moreover, make me interested in your link. What is it that should interest me and why should I bother exploring it?