#1 new book: Species-Viral-Density Concept & Cancer creates new Viruses

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

Newsgroups: sci.med, sci.bio.technology, sci.bio.misc
From: plutonium.archime...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Oct 7 2008 11:21 am
Subject: #1 new concept-- Species Viral Density Re: distemper for cats
is like a human-fatal-cold; NEW BOOK-- Species-Viral-Density

> I want to try to put cat distemper in some sort of perspective
> comparison to
> human health. Suppose that if humans caught a cold-virus and which
> thence
> proceeds to become fatal. In otherwords, it is rare that anyone
> survives a
> cold virus is about the same as for cat-distemper.

> If that is a adequate and plausible comparison, then the next question
> should
> be why has the veterinary science not isolated genetically-immune cats
> of this distemper virus, so that the world is starting to become free
> of all
> other cats that are fatal to distemper?

> Perhaps a partial answer is that the domesticated cat is the distemper
> prone genetic cat and that if there never was a domesticated cat, that
> all the wild ones would be distemper immune.

> I do not know the full situation, what I do know is that the world has
> a
> cat overpopulation for which it is too highly disease-prone.

I am going to need to turn this into a new book becuase the
implications of the concept
are very much large and pertaining to the future of humanity with
respect to human
overpopulation and with respect to pandemics.

As far as I can tell, the cat species since it is associated with the
human species
has the world's highest Species-Viral-Density.

Let me try to give a first stab definition of Species Viral Density.

Species-Viral-Density is the amount of viruses that are fatal to a
species and the
ease at which those viruses infect the species.

In the case of the animal kingdom, I would hazard to guess that the
cat species
has the world's highest Species-Viral-Density with three viruses, one
of which is
cat-distemper that has the ability to infect and is fatal like no
other virus of any
other animal species. The worst virus for humans is HIV and the
birdflu, but
neither of them compares to cat's distemper virus in terms of
infectivity and
fatality. If humanity had a virus comparable to cat distemper it would
be if
humanity's common cold virus were fatal. The cat species has not only
one such killer but three of them.

Why is the cat species the highest Viral-Density? It is because cats
are a
pet species of humanity where they are overpopulated because humanity
is overpopulated. And since overpopulated that the species of cat is
allowed
too much "unfit genetics" as spreading viruses. If the cat species had
never
been a pet of humanity, the wild cats would have been made immune to
the
viruses.

This is important for the future of the human species because our
viral-load
will only keep increasing due to our penchant of overpopulation. As we
increase
from 7 billion humans on Earth to that of 10 billion humans, somewhere
along that
rise will follow a viral load that is both infective and fatal.
Somewhere along that
rise will occur a virus that not only is as infective as the "common
cold" but is
as deadly as distemper is to a cat.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

In the Atom Totality theory as the basis of all of physics and all the
other sciences,
there are two ways in which a living entity is created. One way is for
an energetic
cosmic ray to come to rest and transform its internal energy into
making a living
creature. First life on Earth was cosmic rays coming to a halt and
transforming its
internal energy into a blue green algae or some other life form. So
that an energetic
cosmic ray particle has internal DNA inside itself and when coming to
a halt takes
its energy and produces a living entity.

Another way of making a new species or creature on Earth is via the
Darwin Evolution
method where we have a already existing species of virus and which
they evolve into
a new viral form. Or, take a cancer cell and given Darwin Evolution
the cancer cell
transforms into a viral particle.

So we have a question. How did viruses come into being? And we have
two answers,
either a energetic cosmic ray is transformed into a virus or that a
existing life form
evolves into the viral particle.

Now it is good that I start this book with Viral Density of a given
species because that
is purely factual data. We take a given species like cats or dogs or
humans or apes
and we count the viruses they have. We collect the data of "ease of
infectivity" of
"viral fatality" of "viral sterilization" and other data features. And
from Viral Density of
Species we can determine what species is most vulnerable to viruses
and then give
answers as to why.

So I use the concept of Species Viral Density as a starting point of
data.

Now I reckon but do not know for sure, that the cat species is the
world's highest Species
Viral Density. I make that guess from observing that the cat species
has at least 3 viral
particles that is long lived in the soil, and easily invades a cat
passing by, and ends up
killing the cat in a short time. I know of no other animal species
that is so vulnerable
to viral fatality. And the reason I give for this viral density of cat
species is that the cat
species is highly overpopulated, and abnormally overpopulated due to
its close
association to humanity as pets.

And if humanity does not curb its own overpopulation what the future
holds for us is
a similar Viral Density for Humanity that we see in cats. The worst
virus for humans
is HIV and birdflu. But they do not compare to cat distemper virus for
cats.

Now long ago in the 1990s, if my memory is correct, and which I can
review my
archive of posts, I said that the virus particle evolved from cancer
cells. I bring up that
issue now, because the concept of Species Viral Density plays into the
concept that
a cancer cell is a viral cell in the first stages of evolution of
creating a new virus-species.

Now we can do a biology experiment where we take a animal with cancer
and place it
in soil for which the cells of that animal all decay except for some
cancer cells that have
become "dormant" and for which will infect another animal that injests
that previous
cancer cell.

I maybe wrong on this assertion, that land animals have a higher viral
density than does
ocean animals. And the reason being is that cancer cells in land
animals have a better
chance of becoming encapsulated and lying dormant to infect some
future animal than
does the cancer cell in ocean water.

So here is the experiment: we take an animal ridden with cancer and we
place it
in an environment of soil to see if any of those cancer cells becomes
encapsulated
and lying dormant whereas all the other cells of that animal went
nonliving. In other
words, that animal created a new virus species and where Cancer =
Virus

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

There has to be a good reason why land creatures have a higher viral-
density than does ocean
creatures. And biology should have a large new section of study that
pertains to purely
the density of viruses of species. I am guessing that the viral
density of ocean species
is far less than land creatures. And we need this section of biology
to accumulate the data.

And let me guess of the density of viruses for ocean creatures as 1/10
the density found
on land creature species. Where the full ocean species have a lower
viral density than those
that frequent the land such as seals or otters or penguins.

So now, if my guesses are correct or reasonably correct, what would be
an explanation for
why the species-viral-density is highest amoung land animals and
lowest amoung ocean
species? Some would say that the "medium of transmission of viruses"
is thwarted in water
than in land air medium. But my guess would be that in ocean species
when they get a
cancer, that the cancer cells upon the death of the organism, does not
have a conducive
environment to encapsulate the cancer cells into becoming a "dormant
virus". Upon the
death of an ocean creature, its cells are either consumed or destroyed
by the water
medium. Whereas on land the death of a cancer victim has the greater
chance of the
cancer cells becoming preserved or encapsulated or even altered by
other tiny
organisms that transforms the cancer cell into a viral particle.

Now if I am correct on the above, then the land animals that have
lived for millions of years
longer than say humans have lived, would have a larger number of viral
particles attacking
that species. Here I have to make a distinction between Viral-density
and Viral-count.

Viral-Count is the total number of distinct viral-species that can
attack a species

Viral-Density is the total number of viral-species and the number of
those particles

An example should clarify what I mean. The rabbit species has a
predator-density
and a predator-count. Cats and dogs and hawks and fox are predators
each one is
counted as one. Predator-density of rabbit species is not only the
count of predator
species but the number of individuals or cats and dogs and hawks and
fox.

Now I must say, also, that in viral density I wish to include the
parameter of the virulence
of viral-types such as the devastating fatality of cats by virus
distemper compared to the
mild symptoms of the common cold virus in humans. I hate to use the
term virulence
and maybe have to find some term for fatality of viral types.

But anyway, let me get back to the point I was trying to make about
species relatively new
on Earth versus old ones. If I am correct, then a species like the
apes which go back
tens of millions of years older than the human species, then the Viral-
Count of apes such
as chimpanzee or gorilla should be larger than the Viral-Count of Homo
sapiens. And if we
compare the Viral Count of primates that goes back much further in
geological times than
humanity, the Viral Count for them should be far larger. So the Viral
Count should be a
direct relationship of geological old age. The older a species is,
compared to a new
species has a larger Viral Count for the older species. The reasoning
here is that the older
species had a longer time of having cancers for which some of those
cancers transformed
into viral particles.

Now maybe someone in biology knows of an animal species that has a
form of cancer
and has a virus that is very much similar or obeys the same chemical
pathways. So
similar is the cancer to the virus that one is hard pressed to be able
to tell them apart.
So if biology has just one example of this, well, I propose that it is
the tip of the iceberg
of this new field of biology. Because I contend that a large bulk of
the viruses on Earth
are created and formed by cancer cells that have transformed into
virus-particles.