Question: can viruses multiply in cold environment?
Perl Molson
since the major factor that this virus
uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new
viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or
its considered in both areas, as a sum)
It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in
a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc).
In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication
it would allow our immune system at all to recover and
be able to completely unable the viruses from
continuing to multiply?
To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
in a mountain lake and cold river several times
and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go.
Really.
For oral herpes, applying ice cubs its probably the best choice to go with.
No doubt it makes a huge impact on viruses this low temperature environment.
Perl von Molson
drew
> I think it's a very interesting question,
> since the major factor that this virus
> uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new
> viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or
> its considered in both areas, as a sum)
>
> It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in
> a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc).
We do OK in Canada. :-)
Aren't you forgetting that viruses are not truly 'living things'.
They utilize the cell's replicative properties in a sort of parasitic
manner, actually copying themselves into new copies of your cells.
>
> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
If you haven't killed the cell that the virus lives in, then you
probably haven't killed the virus. That is not to say that the method
is without merit. Read on.
>
> Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication
> it would allow our immune system at all to recover and
> be able to completely unable the viruses from
> continuing to multiply?
Viruses typically exist in two forms, lysogenic and lytic, which is
fancy talk for viruses that live within a cell without harming the
cell or a virus that is potentiated to cause cell death. An outbreak
is an example of the latter. It is reasonable to try to find ways of
keeping the virus in a lysogenic stage. This is probably the way
various anti-virals work...somehow reversing or halting the cascade of
events that occurs when some sort of trigger event causes the virus to
go postal.
In HSV2, there is the migration of the virus along the ganglia and the
subsequent surface symptoms and shedding. A greater knowledge of the
life cycle of the virus is necessary to start considering how to rid
it from the body. I don't think anybody knows enough about it to
accomplish this.
On the other hand, finding ways to avoid cell destruction/symptomatic
shedding is just trial and error.
>
> To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
> in a mountain lake and cold river several times
> and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
You probably scared the virus back to a more hospitable place. :-)
beat...@email.com
drew wrote:
> beat...@email.com (Perl Molson) wrote in message
news:<813d1c43.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > I think it's a very interesting question,
> > since the major factor that this virus
> > uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new
> > viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or
> > its considered in both areas, as a sum)
> >
> > It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in
> > a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc).
>
> We do OK in Canada. :-)
same here (tell me about it...)
>
> Aren't you forgetting that viruses are not truly 'living things'.
> They utilize the cell's replicative properties in a sort of parasitic
> manner, actually copying themselves into new copies of your cells.
>
Yes, I am aware of all these facts;
> >
> > In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
> > water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
> > assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
>
> If you haven't killed the cell that the virus lives in, then you
> probably haven't killed the virus. That is not to say that the
method
> is without merit. Read on.
>
> >
Here is the thing: the cell you are talking about it's actually 2 kinds
of cells;
of is neural cells and the others are skin cells.
Well, in the skin cells, the antivirals work pretty well (as long as
they
are...good antivirals) not necessarily killing the cell host.
That would be the case for the virions located in the neurons.
> > Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of
multiplication
> > it would allow our immune system at all to recover and
> > be able to completely unable the viruses from
> > continuing to multiply?
>
> Viruses typically exist in two forms, lysogenic and lytic, which is
> fancy talk for viruses that live within a cell without harming the
> cell or a virus that is potentiated to cause cell death. An outbreak
> is an example of the latter. It is reasonable to try to find ways
of
> keeping the virus in a lysogenic stage. This is probably the way
> various anti-virals work...somehow reversing or halting the cascade
of
> events that occurs when some sort of trigger event causes the virus
to
> go postal.
It can be some hormonal changes in our bodies that is causing the
herpes to
become active out of latency state. Which hormons are eventually
involved, I do not know.
>
> In HSV2, there is the migration of the virus along the ganglia and
the
> subsequent surface symptoms and shedding. A greater knowledge of the
> life cycle of the virus is necessary to start considering how to rid
> it from the body. I don't think anybody knows enough about it to
> accomplish this.
You know what? You would be surprised of the huge ammount of the lack
of knowledge
there is about herpes virus. Basically, if I have considered around
50-100 questions
there would not be aswers for any of them. Every time I read about
something in particular,
I get the answer: "we do not know how this works etc"
That is why I started treating myself using my own intuition and
experience.
>
> On the other hand, finding ways to avoid cell destruction/symptomatic
> shedding is just trial and error.
That's the ideea behind the natural treatments; for example, lemon balm
cream
does not kill any cells; same for other types of natural remedies;
you cannot say the same thing about the prescription drugs, such as
acyclovir, etc.
Not only there are chances for testicular atrofiation, cancer and other
genetic diseases, but also the cells will be killed as well if using
prescription drugs, in some reported cases (for the former and always
eventually for the latter)
> >
> > To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
> > in a mountain lake and cold river several times
> > and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
>
> You probably scared the virus back to a more hospitable place. :-)
Hopefully one day "he'll" totally forget the path to the skin.
Perl von Molson
Tim Fitzmaurice
> since the major factor that this virus
> uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new
> viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or
> its considered in both areas, as a sum)
Its considered virion by virion. The neuron replication is a bit weird as
its not a normal lytic infection (to preserve the reservoir). Also the
ability to multiply is not quite the right term, as the ability is reliant
on host machinery.
> It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in
> a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc).
Erm to be in equal quantities both flippant and precise thats not true
- I raise penguins in the Antarctic as the example - in fact a number of
warmblooded creatures (including us). There is however an element of
cheating by bringing your own heat supply. To a more relevant example
some bacteria CAN divide etc in pretty cold (and hot) environments.
The issue you are getting towards is actually twofold. There is the issue
about life requiring the liquid phase (ie water, not ice) for its
reactions. This is relevant only if you go below freezing point. The other
issue is the fact that most enzymes are heavily optimised to a fairly
narrow temperature range and their chemistry slows down vastly if you drop
below it - since most organisms live in the 20-40 range thats where most
are set. However its slowing chemistry down. For more complex organisms
like us the slowing down can have serious consequences as systems are
unable to function sufficiently - over time for us it means death by
exposure. For less complex organisms then they tend to slow down but not
necessarily die from it. For viruses in some respects it helps preserve
viability to a point, after that while their viability does drop but its
chemical breakdown so again its retarded.
> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
If you have a cell culture then the lower temperature will reduce the
viral replication speed for that time but it won't halt it permanently,
bring it back up to temperature and it will pick up again. You could
chill it sufficiently long for the host cells to die but thats not
desirable on a large scale if you transfer the idea to whole body.
It will have diddly effect on the virus - if Im transporting virus
suspensions around for a shoprt period and don't want to put them
through a freeze thaw cycle then I'll chill them to that sort of
temperature to maintain the titre of the stock in question for an hour or
so.
In a human body you don't have to go that far in and the temperature will
already have increased closer to the core 37.5 degrees and you have a
continuous outflow of heat from the core anyway to warm things.
And you won't touch the latent site in anyway shape or form either as far
as temperature fluctation goes either.
> Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication
> it would allow our immune system at all to recover and
> be able to completely unable the viruses from
> continuing to multiply?
The immune system is going to recover nothing in that timescale. It also
assumes there is something wrong with the immune system for an outbreak to
occur which isnt true...while immune defects will help kick them off the
virus lifecycle is designed to get around the existence of an intact
system and does so routinely in immunocompetent...the fact lesions develop
and then resolve indicates its working. The immune system also never goes
near the latent reservoir either.
> > To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
> in a mountain lake and cold river several times
> and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
> I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go.
> Really.
I've dived into a pretty damn cold lake in Norway myself fed off glacier
melt, and Geirangerfjord wasn't the warmest of water either I had a
tendency to swim underwater quite a bit when I was younger. Still had the
odd cold sore in the years after those events.
Sorry it doesnt really hold up the way you describe it....especially in a
warmblooded mammal.
> For oral herpes, applying ice cubs its probably the best choice to go with.
To do enough damage to the virus you will trash your own body cells, or
simply not supply enough cold to anything to either. A number of people
here have talked about using ice IIRC for pain relief in outbreaks
so I lean towards ice not harming either virus or cells on the
scale you seem to be suggesting....and plenty of people who have
tested the idea and still get outbreaks to look at.
> No doubt it makes a huge impact on viruses this low temperature environment.
Big doubts, in my opinion, Im afraid.
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
M2sl...@nospam.invalid
I'm still not sure I've quite got it.
Perl Molson wrote:
>>I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or
>> its considered in both areas, as a sum)
Tim F writes:
>Its considered virion by virion. The neuron replication is a bit weird as
>its not a normal lytic infection (to preserve the reservoir).
Lemme see......
The latent infection, residing in the nucleus of a nerve cell in the
ganglia, replicates from time to time but the cell it is in is not
destroyed, so the infection remains. The new offspring (for lack of a
better term) are able to remain within the cell as they travel to the
skin's surface because this particular nerve cell is elongated in
shape and, itself, extends to the surface. Incidentally, it's because
they travel within the nerve cell that the new virions are able to
evade the immune system which can't reach them in there.
.... how am I doing so far?
Now. Once the original stream of offspring reach the surface, they
leave the nerve cell and enter surrounding skin cells where THEY (the
original offspring) replicate. But this time, the cell they are in is
destroyed in the replication process. It's at this time that the
second batch of offspring (offspring of the offspring) is "shed" to
the surface of the skin where they collect and await the possibility
of a transfer to an unsuspecting new host.
So the cycle depends on two separate replication events. The first one
within the nerve cell doesn't destroy the cell. The second one, in a
skin cell at the surface, *does* destroy the cell.
Am I getting anywhere close to following how this cycle works??
Thanks,
M2
Perl Molson
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Perl Molson wrote:
>
> > since the major factor that this virus
> > uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new
> > viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or
> > its considered in both areas, as a sum)
>
> Its considered virion by virion. The neuron replication is a bit weird as
> its not a normal lytic infection (to preserve the reservoir). Also the
> ability to multiply is not quite the right term, as the ability is reliant
> on host machinery.
>
Who know, maybe viruses have their own "fight or flight" type of
reaction,
like the rats do have, maybe they will all leave (or try to leave the
"reservoir" as you called it; during a larger then usual OB
can happen that it would be a step to such a situation.
That is how homeopathy seems to work; homeopaths say that, if cured,
after the homeopathic treatment the individuals will have greater then
usual OB (of whatever the disease was).
Time-dependant Changes in HSV-1 Transcript Abundance During Productive
Infection
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/rnatime.html
As we can see from the above link,
it is pretty clear how things work on a timely basis.
during the immediate early, early, late and latent infection periods.
510 minutes were considered as a reference, I reckon.
OK, then, lets say, following this graphic animation that at the
20,000 virions
(the corresponding moment in time), the person is immersed in a 5
degree
centigrade environment, I would have to pressume that the viral
infection will have a change and will resume after a great reduction.
You cannot say it will continue as it would in a 20 centigrade
environment.
It's clear that the impact of such an imersion will be significant
upon the viral infection.
> > It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in
> > a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc).
>
> Erm to be in equal quantities both flippant and precise thats not true
> - I raise penguins in the Antarctic as the example - in fact a number of
> warmblooded creatures (including us). There is however an element of
> cheating by bringing your own heat supply. To a more relevant example
> some bacteria CAN divide etc in pretty cold (and hot) environments.
>
There are exceptions, of course, but for the types of bacterias
and viruses related to herpes (those found on the skin, blood etc)
such a low temperature environment will have a great impact on them.
(the funny thing is that my former girlfriend was the first to
came up with this ideea of cold water; she has never had herpes
to my knowledge).
> The issue you are getting towards is actually twofold. There is the issue
> about life requiring the liquid phase (ie water, not ice) for its
> reactions. This is relevant only if you go below freezing point. The other
> issue is the fact that most enzymes are heavily optimised to a fairly
> narrow temperature range and their chemistry slows down vastly if you drop
> below it - since most organisms live in the 20-40 range thats where most
> are set. However its slowing chemistry down. For more complex organisms
> like us the slowing down can have serious consequences as systems are
> unable to function sufficiently - over time for us it means death by
> exposure. For less complex organisms then they tend to slow down but not
> necessarily die from it. For viruses in some respects it helps preserve
> viability to a point, after that while their viability does drop but its
> chemical breakdown so again its retarded.
It is to my understanding the fact that the skin needs to stay healthy
enough during that particular immersion in the cold water (it may be
also
that the immune system gets a boost during this time, it's one of the
"miracles of the water", in special if oxigenated water such as a
mountain water); for example, if you get a frost bite on your legs
during an outdoor
stay, in your lower parts of the body, like upper legs, that will not
help you in the fight against herpes; the dammaged skin would be
rather a
trigger.
On the other hand, it is well docummented the fact that immersions in
cold
water of your legs will improve the circulation in the legs that also
being
related to herpes: think about the fact that most people when
having an herpes OB are experiencing leg muscle pain, numbness etc.
>
> > In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
> > water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
> > assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
>
> If you have a cell culture then the lower temperature will reduce the
> viral replication speed for that time but it won't halt it permanently,
> bring it back up to temperature and it will pick up again. You could
> chill it sufficiently long for the host cells to die but thats not
> desirable on a large scale if you transfer the idea to whole body.
> It will have diddly effect on the virus - if Im transporting virus
> suspensions around for a shoprt period and don't want to put them
> through a freeze thaw cycle then I'll chill them to that sort of
> temperature to maintain the titre of the stock in question for an hour or
> so.
>
> In a human body you don't have to go that far in and the temperature will
> already have increased closer to the core 37.5 degrees and you have a
> continuous outflow of heat from the core anyway to warm things.
>
> And you won't touch the latent site in anyway shape or form either as far
> as temperature fluctation goes either.
Yes, you won't touch the latent site, but as my ideea goes,
the fact that the transport mechanism will be interrupted will be a
great
impact on the viruses as shedding.
>
> > Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication
> > it would allow our immune system at all to recover and
> > be able to completely unable the viruses from
> > continuing to multiply?
>
> The immune system is going to recover nothing in that timescale. It also
> assumes there is something wrong with the immune system for an outbreak to
> occur which isnt true...while immune defects will help kick them off the
> virus lifecycle is designed to get around the existence of an intact
> system and does so routinely in immunocompetent...the fact lesions develop
> and then resolve indicates its working. The immune system also never goes
> near the latent reservoir either.
>
> > > To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
> > in a mountain lake and cold river several times
> > and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
> > I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go.
> > Really.
>
> I've dived into a pretty damn cold lake in Norway myself fed off glacier
> melt, and Geirangerfjord wasn't the warmest of water either I had a
> tendency to swim underwater quite a bit when I was younger. Still had the
> odd cold sore in the years after those events.
>
C'mon, Tim, you did not swim underwater in a 5 degree lake when
you were a kid, not for more then a few seconds anyway.
That would not be sufficient to have a drastic impact
on the shedding of the viruses.
It's different when immersing your lower body for genital herpes:
I stopped having genital herpes OB since that summer when doing these
long immersions in cold river water!
I still get cold sores though.
A cold sore cannot have a similar treatment, because you simply cannot
immerse long enough your face in cold water (all the surrounding
neurons
must be immersed not only your lips, right?), you would risk big time
health issues; it's fine to do it with your lower body; I wouldn't go
so far
to immerse my head into a 5 degree water due to the danger for the
brain!
> Sorry it doesnt really hold up the way you describe it....especially in a
> warmblooded mammal.
You are going a bit too general in my opinion.Of course a penguin has
thick skin but have you heared of penguins getting herpes?
>
> > For oral herpes, applying ice cubs its probably the best choice to go with.
>
> To do enough damage to the virus you will trash your own body cells, or
> simply not supply enough cold to anything to either. A number of people
> here have talked about using ice IIRC for pain relief in outbreaks
> so I lean towards ice not harming either virus or cells on the
> scale you seem to be suggesting....and plenty of people who have
> tested the idea and still get outbreaks to look at.
>
Ice it's soothing for the cold sores. It will stop the blood from
reaching the area and other things are taking place, too. It will
improve the circulation afterward that will help the healing
processes.
I have to disagree with you, I think it DOES have a great impact on
the viruses.
Perl von Molson, autodidact, expert in treating HSV symptoms
naturally.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Who know, maybe viruses have their own "fight or flight" type of
> reaction,
They have a reactive ability, reliant on, so far as we can tell, host
transcription factor or similar changing the way they act...unlike rats
leaving the sinking ship it doesn;t throw the reservoir virus out, it
starts it replicating.
> As we can see from the above link,
> it is pretty clear how things work on a timely basis.
> during the immediate early, early, late and latent infection periods.
> 510 minutes were considered as a reference, I reckon.
Thats the lifecycle of a single synchronous infection...not quite the same
as a human body.....it describes the lifecycle of one virion nicely.
> You cannot say it will continue as it would in a 20 centigrade
> environment.
I didn;t say it wouldnt....I very clearly stated it would be slowed very
much in cold....my point is that viruses are so simple biochemically
compared to a large organism like us that they are capable of picking up
again and carrying on.
> There are exceptions, of course, but for the types of bacterias
> and viruses related to herpes (those found on the skin, blood etc)
> such a low temperature environment will have a great impact on them.
You rather missed my statement that I use cold to presreve titre of virus
while Im handling it.
>>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
>>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
>>> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
>
> Yes, you won't touch the latent site, but as my ideea goes,
> the fact that the transport mechanism will be interrupted will be a
> great
> impact on the viruses as shedding.
Again back to the scale point and the interrupt point. You might slow
things down a abit and temporarily. If you do more you will do so by
wrecking your own body...that transport mechanism may be what the virus
uses but it is also a host cell transport mechanism - it has a purpose to
the cell other than moving some virus around. You are talking about a
system that is buried in relatively deep and so protected from the cold.
>>>> To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
>>> in a mountain lake and cold river several times
>>> and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
>>> I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go.
>>> Really.
>>
>> I've dived into a pretty damn cold lake in Norway myself fed off glacier
>> melt, and Geirangerfjord wasn't the warmest of water either I had a
>> tendency to swim underwater quite a bit when I was younger. Still had the
>> odd cold sore in the years after those events.
>>
>
>
> C'mon, Tim, you did not swim underwater in a 5 degree lake when
> you were a kid, not for more then a few seconds anyway.
> That would not be sufficient to have a drastic impact
> on the shedding of the viruses.
It was probably around 20-30 but you said that would be enough, hence my
use of such swimming as a counter - also not even normal swimming immerses
the face for substantial periods of time - examine either freestyle or
breaststroke done reasonably.
In the paragraph above you have directly contradicted your initial
statements;
I quote your exact words from the first post...
>>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
>>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
>>> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
> It's different when immersing your lower body for genital herpes:
>> Sorry it doesnt really hold up the way you describe it....especially in a
>> warmblooded mammal.
>
> You are going a bit too general in my opinion. Of course a penguin has
> thick skin but have you heared of penguins getting herpes?
Yes - there are a number of avian herpesviruses and there are a couple of
papers around listing penguins.
Erm 2 secs...here we go
Kincaid AL, Bunton TE, Cranfield M.
Herpesvirus-like infection in black-footed penguins (Spheniscus demersus).
J Wildl Dis. 1988 Jan;24(1):173-5.
A more reasonable/studied example is probably in seals and
phocidherpesviruses. You will find more data on them and they too spend
large amounts of time immersed in cold. The thick skin issue merely covers
the gradient of heat in the body for long term survival...comparatively
its still similar since you have a skin surface the virus travels to
eventually. They still get active infections.
Im not being too general in the slightest - the basic idea that a warm
blooded mammal has an internal heat supply that maintains temperature in
the body in some structures you are considering is fundamental to us as
organisms and pretty much a major point for this discussion.
> I have to disagree with you, I think it DOES have a great impact on
> the viruses.
Not in the way you describe - note I have said cold slows things up in
viruses, basic chemistry indicates that - my issues are a) the temporary
nature of the thing due to the simplicity of virus biochemistry compared
to host cell biochemistry and b) how easy it is to get thats sort of cooling effect in vivo because us
mammals heat ourselves from the inside.
I could believe some general health issues with regular swimming in cold
temperatures helping stress relief or general health having a knock on
effect to help some people - there are people in Russia and Sweden who
swear by this sort of thing and go swimming in lakes and sea holes in the
middle of winter (I've seen them do it *shudders*). But not a global fast
permanent shut down of virus in the manner you describe.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Tim,
> I'm still not sure I've quite got it.
[snip]
>
> Am I getting anywhere close to following how this cycle works??
Pretty much spot on. There is some cell to cell direct spread that
owuldn't have to be lytic, and some virus production from cells that
deliberately hold up programmed cell death to provide the usual exceptions
but thats the basic idea.
drew
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 M2sl...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>
> > Tim,
> > I'm still not sure I've quite got it.
> [snip]
> >
> > Am I getting anywhere close to following how this cycle works??
>
> Pretty much spot on. There is some cell to cell direct spread that
> owuldn't have to be lytic, and some virus production from cells that
> deliberately hold up programmed cell death to provide the usual exceptions
> but thats the basic idea.
>
> Tim
So the virus is travelling in two directions? Retrograde from the
skin cells and anterograde in secondary outbreaks, right? Now, this
is where there seems to be some debate. There must be significant
replication of virus at the basal ganglia to facilitate a secondary
outbreak at the surface, yet little is mentioned about this mechanism
in the sensory neuron nucleus.
The focus seems to be more upon using HSV for gene therapy as it so
effectively delivers a payload to the neurons...maybe replace missing
transmitter substance or whatever.
And also, I haven't read anything about direct cell to cell spread.
How is this facilitated? Are there channels in the lipid bilayer of
an intact cell that allow for movement of the virus outside of the
cytoplasm? I thought that the whole basis of cell to cell contact was
based upon the theory of lysis and release of viral particles. Is
this a mechanism involved in asymptomatic shedding of viral particles?
M2sl...@nospam.invalid
>So the virus is travelling in two directions?
Not in the cycle I just described.
Or maybe I'm missing the point of your question.
But no, it's only traveling in one direction. That is, from the base
of the spine (for a genital infection) to the surface of the skin.
Note, the "cycle" I described was actually only half of the whole
thing. However, that half, the second half, periodically repeats
itself so I guess you could consider that a cycle of its own.
The only time I can see virus going in the other direction is during
the transmission part of the cycle which I didn't mention before.
That's when newly acquired virus travels from the skin surface of a
perviously uninfected person, to it's safe haven in the ganglia at the
base of the spine. But that only happens once.... when a person is
initially infected. After that, virus is traveling only in the other
direction.
At least that's the way I understand it.
M2
Perl Molson
>
> > Who know, maybe viruses have their own "fight or flight" type of
> > reaction,
>
> They have a reactive ability, reliant on, so far as we can tell, host
> transcription factor or similar changing the way they act...unlike rats
> leaving the sinking ship it doesn;t throw the reservoir virus out, it
> starts it replicating.
I will have to continue, risking of boring you with my long
paragraphs ( I apologyse for my grammar and all that).
These are very important considerations for me.
Viruses, unlike rats or other creatures, doesn't seem to have
the "survival instinct" as we call it; however, we don't know
what is going on a a quantum level; maybe there is such thing as
viral fight for its survival as any other creatures do it all the
time.
>
> > As we can see from the above link,
> > it is pretty clear how things work on a timely basis.
> > during the immediate early, early, late and latent infection periods.
> > 510 minutes were considered as a reference, I reckon.
>
> Thats the lifecycle of a single synchronous infection...not quite the same
> as a human body.....it describes the lifecycle of one virion nicely.
>
After all, there is the only way to compare using a scientific method.
It can be that far from the live situation.
> > You cannot say it will continue as it would in a 20 centigrade
> > environment.
>
> I didn;t say it wouldnt....I very clearly stated it would be slowed very
> much in cold....my point is that viruses are so simple biochemically
> compared to a large organism like us that they are capable of picking up
> again and carrying on.
Please read below; the ideea is that slowing down the viral
multiplication
for a short period of time even, would have a great impact in the
recovery of our defence mechanisms to further fight against the virus.
In special when, as I've wrote below, the asymptomatic shedding will
be diminished.
>
> > There are exceptions, of course, but for the types of bacterias
> > and viruses related to herpes (those found on the skin, blood etc)
> > such a low temperature environment will have a great impact on them.
>
> You rather missed my statement that I use cold to presreve titre of virus
> while Im handling it.
>
> >>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
> >>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
> >>> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
> >
> > Yes, you won't touch the latent site, but as my ideea goes,
> > the fact that the transport mechanism will be interrupted will be a
> > great
> > impact on the viruses as shedding.
>
> Again back to the scale point and the interrupt point. You might slow
> things down a abit and temporarily. If you do more you will do so by
> wrecking your own body...that transport mechanism may be what the virus
> uses but it is also a host cell transport mechanism - it has a purpose to
> the cell other than moving some virus around. You are talking about a
> system that is buried in relatively deep and so protected from the cold.
I don't know about that one, Tim. "burried relatively deep", when
actually
the cold water will cool down 30 (thirthy) times faster then cold air
our
bodies. That can be the case for the penguins, that have a thick layer
that
protects them from cold, indeed. Same for polar bears.
When immersed in cold water, the blood in the vecinity of the skin
will be
cooled down very fast and that may impact on the viruses situated
in those areas.
>
> >>>> To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago
> >>> in a mountain lake and cold river several times
> >>> and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since.
> >>> I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go.
> >>> Really.
> >>
> >> I've dived into a pretty damn cold lake in Norway myself fed off glacier
> >> melt, and Geirangerfjord wasn't the warmest of water either I had a
> >> tendency to swim underwater quite a bit when I was younger. Still had the
> >> odd cold sore in the years after those events.
> >>
> >
> >
> > C'mon, Tim, you did not swim underwater in a 5 degree lake when
> > you were a kid, not for more then a few seconds anyway.
> > That would not be sufficient to have a drastic impact
> > on the shedding of the viruses.
>
> It was probably around 20-30 but you said that would be enough, hence my
> use of such swimming as a counter - also not even normal swimming immerses
> the face for substantial periods of time - examine either freestyle or
> breaststroke done reasonably.
>
> In the paragraph above you have directly contradicted your initial
> statements;
No, not really; when I've meant a few seconds in a 5 degree centigrade
water, that cannot be applied to swimming underwater for the same
period of time.
20 degrees is not at all the same as in 5 degrees; a totally different
story.
You can't even compare it.
It must be repetitive in order to be effective;
if doing this underwater, you or me or anyone else would risk having
a thermic shock to the brain and other life threatening problems, but
LOL! read these:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/265
A mathematical model for human brain cooling during cold-water
near-drowning
Our model indicates that, during the first 2 min of submersion,
ventilation rates of 500 ml/min for an adult and 150 ml/min for a
child are required to reduce the central blood temperature by 6°C.
This amount should be considered as a minimal requirement, inasmuch as
effectiveness of heat exchange between water and central blood cannot
be 100%, and the blood temperature could be affected by venous return
from other parts of the body. The amount of water that can be
aspirated/ventilated that is compatible with life is not known;
however, cold-water near-drowning survivors have been shown to have
water in the airways and lungs (5). It was demonstrated that as many
as 61% of submersed dogs were revived after breathing room-temperature
water for an extended period of 75 s (9).
Predictive data from the present model are consistent with the general
belief that children have a greater chance for survival from
cold-water submersion than adults. Children have a smaller-sized head,
which results in more conductive cooling. Furthermore, the studies of
Ramey et al. (22) showed that the breath-hold duration was shorter in
children than in adults during total submersion. If this relationship
persisted during accidental cold-water submersion, children would have
water in their upper airways, and possibly ventilate water, earlier
than adults. Earlier conductive cooling at boundary 2 and circulatory
cooling via the lungs should provide an additional survival advantage
for children.
I would've never imagine, that penguins can get herpes infections,
too.
Let's not forget that, maybe, the whole point about the cold water
immersion
can be rather the immune stimulation (or stress release, as you've
pointed that out).
You are aware that in order cu cure colds, such cold water immersions
of cold
showers help a whole lot.
>
> > I have to disagree with you, I think it DOES have a great impact on
> > the viruses.
>
> Not in the way you describe - note I have said cold slows things up in
> viruses, basic chemistry indicates that - my issues are a) the temporary
> nature of the thing due to the simplicity of virus biochemistry compared
> to host cell biochemistry and b) how easy it is to get thats sort of cooling effect in vivo because us
> mammals heat ourselves from the inside.
>
> I could believe some general health issues with regular swimming in cold
> temperatures helping stress relief or general health having a knock on
> effect to help some people - there are people in Russia and Sweden who
> swear by this sort of thing and go swimming in lakes and sea holes in the
> middle of winter (I've seen them do it *shudders*). But not a global fast
> permanent shut down of virus in the manner you describe.
>
> Tim
The idea was, when a huge number of viruses that multiply
exponentially
can be interrupted from doing so, there must be a great impact on
their
multiplication (see the temporal graphic) and even a little bit of
time
will allow our body to recover. After all, the future shedding viruses
will originate perhaps from this large ammount of viruses seen at the
end
of the animation. THAT LARGE AMMOUNT OF VIRUSES can be the causal of
asymptomatic shedding.
beat...@email.com
Are you serious about it?
I have never, ever consider it to be this way. I've always thought
that the virus can travel from the skin back to the ganglia and
then from the ganglia to the skin, via neuronal travel mechanisms using
its spikes to attach themselves.
There is multiplication in the neuron (much less ammont) and mostly
in the skin areas.
What would be the reason that the virus only at the beginning would
travel towards the ganglia? The immune system that doesn't allow
viruses
to enter from the skin cells to the neuron cells? Why would be
different
the other way around?
M.L.S.
posted:
<snip>
>[H]owever, we don't know what is going on a a quantum level;
>maybe there is such thing as viral fight for its survival as any
>other creatures do it all the time.
It all depends on the phase of the moon, Perlie. Full moon: lots of
quantum fighting. New moon: only a little quantum fighting. Just
like werewolves.
Mike
M2sl...@nospam.invalid
>What would be the reason that the virus only at the beginning would
>travel towards the ganglia?
On a previously UNinfected individual, the virus enters the neuron at
the skin surface, then travels to, and enters, the nucleus at the base
of the spine. Once the virus has set up its latent infection in the
nucleus, it never leaves. Only its "offspring" leave. And when they
do, they can cause either symptomatic shedding (an outbreak) or
asymptomatic shedding.
>The immune system that doesn't allow viruses
>to enter from the skin cells to the neuron cells?
I don't know whether the immune system stops new virus from returning
to the nucleus or whether that's just part of the hsv process. But it
wouldn't matter anyway whether or not a second virion found its way
down a neuron that's already infected.
>Why would be different the other way around?
If a second virion, at a later date, followed the same neuron down
from the skin, it would find the nucleus to be already infected (day
late, dollar short).
Just my take on it.
YMMV
M2
beat...@email.com
M2sl...@nospam.invalid wrote:
> beatadje writes:
> >What would be the reason that the virus only at the beginning would
> >travel towards the ganglia?
>
> On a previously UNinfected individual, the virus enters the neuron at
> the skin surface, then travels to, and enters, the nucleus at the
base
> of the spine. Once the virus has set up its latent infection in the
> nucleus, it never leaves. Only its "offspring" leave. And when they
> do, they can cause either symptomatic shedding (an outbreak) or
> asymptomatic shedding.
>
//Only its "offspring" leave//
Are you sure? Did you read about it?
> >The immune system that doesn't allow viruses
> >to enter from the skin cells to the neuron cells?
>
> I don't know whether the immune system stops new virus from returning
> to the nucleus or whether that's just part of the hsv process. But it
> wouldn't matter anyway whether or not a second virion found its way
> down a neuron that's already infected.
>
I think it's very important actually...
If you know where are the "battlefields" its easier to win the war,
right?
> >Why would be different the other way around?
>
> If a second virion, at a later date, followed the same neuron down
> from the skin, it would find the nucleus to be already infected (day
> late, dollar short).
Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron?
Man, I wish it was that easy...
Perl von Molson
beat...@email.com
Leave the kiddie jokes and put your ass to work; these
are important issues.
Mike, don't be a couch potatoe!
Perl von Molson
drew
> drew writes:
> >So the virus is travelling in two directions?
>
> Not in the cycle I just described.
> Or maybe I'm missing the point of your question.
No, I think you answered it.
> But no, it's only traveling in one direction. That is, from the base
> of the spine (for a genital infection) to the surface of the skin.
> Note, the "cycle" I described was actually only half of the whole
> thing. However, that half, the second half, periodically repeats
> itself so I guess you could consider that a cycle of its own.
I am a little confused about the role of the neuron cell bodies in the
production of new viral particles but if I understand correctly, the
axons can be equated with the cytoplasm of a skin cell. Rather than
lyse the cell, the viral particles can be manufactured in the nerve
cell nucleus and can zip out to the skin cells down the axons like a
kid on a waterslide.
I wonder if there is a way to slow the axonal transport of newly
formed viral particles from the basal ganglia? If that transport
mechanism could be interrupted, there would be no such thing as a
secondary infection.
Of course you don't want to monkey around too much with your sensory
neurons, or you won't feel anything at all down there. :-0
>
> The only time I can see virus going in the other direction is during
> the transmission part of the cycle which I didn't mention before.
> That's when newly acquired virus travels from the skin surface of a
> perviously uninfected person, to it's safe haven in the ganglia at the
> base of the spine. But that only happens once.... when a person is
> initially infected. After that, virus is traveling only in the other
> direction.
Yes, I believe this is correct.
Drew.
M.L.S.
>M.L.S. wrote:
>> On 25 Nov 2004 11:11:07 -0800, beat...@email.com (Perl Molson)
>> posted:
>> <snip>
>> >[H]owever, we don't know what is going on a a quantum level;
>> >maybe there is such thing as viral fight for its survival as any
>> >other creatures do it all the time.
>> It all depends on the phase of the moon, Perlie. Full moon: lots of
>> quantum fighting. New moon: only a little quantum fighting. Just
>> like werewolves.
>Leave the kiddie jokes and put your ass to work; these
>are important issues.
The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses, that such is an
"important issue", and that you think YOU are "work[ing]" on curing
HSV. Those are the "jokes".
Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless.
>Mike, don't be a couch potatoe!
Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of
cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important
issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours?
Mike
beat...@email.com
M. L. S. wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2004 20:15:01 -0800, beat...@email.com posted:
>
> >M.L.S. wrote:
>
> >> On 25 Nov 2004 11:11:07 -0800, beat...@email.com (Perl Molson)
> >> posted:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >[H]owever, we don't know what is going on a a quantum level;
> >> >maybe there is such thing as viral fight for its survival as any
> >> >other creatures do it all the time.
>
> >> It all depends on the phase of the moon, Perlie. Full moon: lots
of
> >> quantum fighting. New moon: only a little quantum fighting. Just
> >> like werewolves.
>
> >Leave the kiddie jokes and put your ass to work; these
> >are important issues.
>
> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses,
So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting.
Of course there are things going on at the quantum level.
Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does.
There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum
in order to become viable and functional. Such an equilibrum
is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the
balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels.
that such is an
> "important issue", and that you think YOU are "work[ing]" on curing
> HSV.
First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a
big
impediment in curing yourself from it.
Those are the "jokes".
>
> Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless.
>
As long as you don't have a better alternative to the
points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to
call my theory a "joke". A joke requires a context
that contradicts some other view of the situation.
You didn't express any other view.
Your joke doesn't make sense.
> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe!
>
> Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of
> cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important
> issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours?
>
I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that.
Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you want
to know my credit card number,
too?
Perl von Molson
> Mike
M.L.S.
>M. L. S. wrote:
>> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
>> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses,
>So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting.
>Of course there are things going on at the quantum level.
>Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does.
Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe
wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has
precisely zilch to do with what you are positing. Viruses can no
more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability than a
gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself
operational.
>There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum
>in order to become viable and functional.
Do you mean "light" waves? No matter. Neither "energies" nor
"waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional". Of course, it is
difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a
simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more
basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is
now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous,
like most of what you come out with.
>Such an equilibrum
>is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the
>balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels.
My cat is the same cat in the living room as in the dining room.
>>that such is an "important issue", and that you think
>>YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV.
>First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a
>big impediment in curing yourself from it.
More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it
won't require anyone's belief to be effective. Second, the BIG
"impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT
ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*. I *know* that I don't have the
knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want
to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. I am
quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure
that YOU are not that someone else.
>>Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless.
>As long as you don't have a better alternative to the
>points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to
>call my theory a "joke".
That's illogical, Perlie. I don't need to possess a cure for herpes
in order to point out that you don't have one, or to point out that
your latest theory is as wrong as your previous theory. If
Acyclovir didn't exist, pressing hot wooden spoons against your lips
STILL wouldn't work.
> A joke requires a context
>that contradicts some other view of the situation.
>You didn't express any other view.
>Your joke doesn't make sense.
The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their*
context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery".
>> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe!
>> Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of
>> cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important
>> issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours?
>I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that.
>Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you want
>to know my credit card number, too?
You can't describe your job without revealing your credit card
number?
Mike
beat...@email.com
M.L.S. wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2004 10:25:53 -0800, beat...@email.com posted:
>
> >M. L. S. wrote:
>
> >> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
> >> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses,
>
> >So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting.
> >Of course there are things going on at the quantum level.
> >Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does.
>
> Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe
> wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has
> precisely zilch to do with what you are positing.
The idea was that viruses will try to "survive" in their own way.
Even if apparently viruses doesn't seem to have a
life in themselves, they do have an "instinct of survival" behaviour
as I wrote below. Viruses do not change the nature of matter. Neither
do I.
I just pointed out that viruses are trying to follow a certain pattern
intrinsically contained in their being.
For example, if a virus is to choose between going along the axon using
the neuronal travel mechanism where they can further multiply and
remaining in their latent state WHEN FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE VIRUS
TO
DO SO, the virus will choose the former alternative. it's about the
way Nature works.
Viruses can no
> more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability than a
> gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself
> operational.
Viruses do not "expoit quantum states"; it is done intrinsically.
that is what we call instinct.
>
> >There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain
equilibrum
> >in order to become viable and functional.
>
> Do you mean "light" waves? No matter.
wave lenghts I've meant, not light waves.
There are subatomic particles that are emiting energy in
certain wave lenghts. If that particular state is in equilibrum,
that means the energies are in a certain balance.
Particles are emiting waves of various lengths,
depending of their state of balance.
Life requires, as well as any other components that
have an existance, a particular state of balance in order to
function.
Neither "energies" nor
> "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional".
False. I repeat, as I do it severel times in this topic,
there is a balance on a quantum level, an equilibrum
that it's always referenced as a default state of the living matter.
Of course, it is
> difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a
> simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more
> basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is
> now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous,
> like most of what you come out with.
>
> >Such an equilibrum
> >is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the
> >balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels.
>
> My cat is the same cat in the living room as in the dining room.
>
That explains how much you are grasping the concepts...LOL
> >>that such is an "important issue", and that you think
> >>YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV.
> There are enough cures out there, most of them are folk remedies
shamanic and other type of cures. If you or other haven't heared of
them it doesn't
exclude them from existing.
> >First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already
a
> >big impediment in curing yourself from it.
>
> More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it
> won't require anyone's belief to be effective.
A cure is not going to be your cat, Mike, to "come along".
A rose is a rose is a rose...
Second, the BIG
> "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT
> ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*.
(except for the wooden spoons LOL!)
I *know* that I don't have the
> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want
> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities.
neither do I. However, the type of cure I'm trying to find
doesn't require either one of the above mentioned factors.
All I need is a little bit of time (it's tough nowadays but I take it
as a hobby,
I'm passionate about learning these things, that would help me to
maintain my general health anyway), money it's all that you pay for
a little bit of ingredients, a few bucks here and there. Again, those
things are
good for general health.
Energy? No wonder you lack of energy, Mike, considering the crap you're
eating
and avoid eating.
I am
> quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure
> that YOU are not that someone else.
>
> >>Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but
jokes, nevertheless.
>
> >As long as you don't have a better alternative to the
> >points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to
> >call my theory a "joke".
>
> That's illogical, Perlie. I don't need to possess a cure for herpes
> in order to point out that you don't have one, or to point out that
> your latest theory is as wrong as your previous theory.
After all, I will be the one cured; the fact that I share my methods
doesn't necessarily mean they will for for anyone else as well.
By the number of treatments that I've tried, it would be hard to say
which one have worked.
If
> Acyclovir didn't exist,
Acyclovir require lifetime consistent ingestion and
it's expensive too. I've read about Acyclovir
causing cancer and testicular athrophiation, to name just a couple of
things (besides headaches, etc etc)
pressing hot wooden spoons against your lips
> STILL wouldn't work.
>
How much did you pay for that wooden spoon? Is that my fault, you've
started the fire alarm by burning spoons?
> > A joke requires a context
> >that contradicts some other view of the situation.
> >You didn't express any other view.
> >Your joke doesn't make sense.
>
> The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their*
> context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery".
>
Interesting
> >> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe!
>
> >> Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of
> >> cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my
"important
> >> issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours?
>
> >I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that.
> >Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you
want
> >to know my credit card number, too?
>
> You can't describe your job without revealing your credit card
> number?
>
Maybe (considering how many salespeople are around it's pretty close
for that one
to happen); anyway, why don't you ask any other poster in the group
what jobs they have, why you're asking me, when I've already denied to
tell you?)
Perl von Molson
> Mike
M.L.S.
>M.L.S. wrote:
>> On 26 Nov 2004 10:25:53 -0800, beat...@email.com posted:
>> >M. L. S. wrote:
>> >> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
>> >> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses,
>> >So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting.
>> >Of course there are things going on at the quantum level.
>> >Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does.
>> Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe
>> wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has
>> precisely zilch to do with what you are positing.
>The idea was that viruses will try to "survive" in their own way.
That idea is laughable, Perlie, even if you move it out of the realm
of quantum mechanics with which you associated it earlier.
>Even if apparently viruses doesn't seem to have a
>life in themselves, they do have an "instinct of survival" behaviour
>as I wrote below.
No, Perlie, viruses do NOT have an "instinct of survival". They
have no instincts of any kind. They are little machines that will
react to the same environment the same way every time.
But here's another joke for you, Perlie. Three posts ago you
wrote...
"Viruses, unlike rats or other creatures, doesn't seem to have
the "survival instinct" as we call it".
Now you write...
"[T]hey do have an "instinct of survival" behaviour".
I think that's funny. Maybe not ha ha funny, but still funny.
>Viruses do not change the nature of matter. Neither
>do I.
>I just pointed out that viruses are trying to follow a certain pattern
>intrinsically contained in their being.
You're sounding less ridiculous, because you're not talking about
"quantum level[s]" anymore, but essentially you are lying about what
you said earlier.
>For example, if a virus is to choose between going along the axon using
>the neuronal travel mechanism where they can further multiply and
>remaining in their latent state WHEN FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE VIRUS
>TO DO SO, the virus will choose the former alternative. it's about the
>way Nature works.
LOL. Viruses choose nothing, Perlie. When the right chemical
button is pushed, the virus goes and performs as its programming
dictates.
>>Viruses can no more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability
>>than a gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself operational.
>Viruses do not "expoit quantum states"; it is done intrinsically.
>that is what we call instinct.
That may be what you call instinct, but it's just a repetition of
the same joke, Perlie. Viruses are tiny self-replicating robots.
They do not have any instincts.
>>>There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum
>>>in order to become viable and functional.
>> Do you mean "light" waves? No matter.
>wave lenghts I've meant, not light waves.
That would be "lengths" then. And the statement three sentences up
is still utter nonsense.
>There are subatomic particles that are emiting energy in
>certain wave lenghts.
Name 'em.
>If that particular state is in equilibrum,
>that means the energies are in a certain balance.
Gibberish.
>Particles are emiting waves of various lengths,
>depending of their state of balance.
More gibberish.
>Life requires, as well as any other components that
>have an existance, a particular state of balance in order to
>function.
That's so general as to be meaningless, ie., it is grammatically
mangled gibberish.
>>Neither "energies" nor "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional".
>False. I repeat, as I do it severel times in this topic,
>there is a balance on a quantum level, an equilibrum
>that it's always referenced as a default state of the living matter.
You're loony. And you ignored my criticism of your nonsense use of
the words "viable" and "functional". Speaking of "wave lengths" as
being "viable" is nonsense. Speaking of "Life" as "referenc[ing]"
the internal architecture of the atom is a sad, stupid joke.
>>Of course, it is
>> difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a
>> simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more
>> basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is
>> now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous,
>> like most of what you come out with.
>> >Such an equilibrum
>> >is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the
>> >balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels.
>> My cat is the same cat in the living room as in the dining room.
>That explains how much you are grasping the concepts...LOL
"And your wise men don't know how it feels to be Thick as a Brick".
-- Tull.
>> >>that such is an "important issue", and that you think
>> >>YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV.
> There are enough cures out there, most of them are folk remedies
>shamanic and other type of cures. If you or other haven't heared of
>them it doesn't exclude them from existing.
You're not capable of conducting a straight line discussion of
anything, are you?
>>>First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a
>>>big impediment in curing yourself from it.
>> More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it
>> won't require anyone's belief to be effective.
>A cure is not going to be your cat, Mike, to "come along".
>A rose is a rose is a rose...
A cure *will* come along, Perlie. By and by. But it won't come
from some addle-pate grinding herbs in his blender.
>>Second, the BIG
>> "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT
>> ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*.
>(except for the wooden spoons LOL!)
Don't put YOUR crap on me, monkey boy. Here's your stupidity from
two years ago when you floated your wooden spoon theory:
>>I *know* that I don't have the
>> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want
>> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
>> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities.
>neither do I. However, the type of cure I'm trying to find
>doesn't require either one of the above mentioned factors.
>All I need is a little bit of time (it's tough nowadays but I take it
>as a hobby,
Go for it.
>I'm passionate about learning these things, that would help me to
>maintain my general health anyway), money it's all that you pay for
>a little bit of ingredients, a few bucks here and there. Again, those
>things are good for general health.
>Energy? No wonder you lack of energy, Mike, considering the crap you're
>eating and avoid eating.
Who said I lack energy, Perlie?
>>I am quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure
>> that YOU are not that someone else.
>> >>Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but
>jokes, nevertheless.
>> >As long as you don't have a better alternative to the
>> >points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to
>> >call my theory a "joke".
>> That's illogical, Perlie. I don't need to possess a cure for herpes
>> in order to point out that you don't have one, or to point out that
>> your latest theory is as wrong as your previous theory.
>After all, I will be the one cured; the fact that I share my methods
>doesn't necessarily mean they will for for anyone else as well.
>By the number of treatments that I've tried, it would be hard to say
>which one have worked.
I can tell you, without even knowing the bulk of the particulars:
none of them.
>If Acyclovir didn't exist,
>Acyclovir require lifetime consistent ingestion and
>it's expensive too. I've read about Acyclovir
>causing cancer and testicular athrophiation, to name just a couple of
>things (besides headaches, etc etc)
You're lying, Perlie. You're intentionly spreading false
information because it suits your particular brand of backwards
stupidity.
>>pressing hot wooden spoons against your lips STILL wouldn't work.
>How much did you pay for that wooden spoon? Is that my fault, you've
>started the fire alarm by burning spoons?
My wooden spoons are the expensive kind. I don't burn them. And I
wouldn't waste them pursuing some monkey boy magic.
>> > A joke requires a context
>> >that contradicts some other view of the situation.
>> >You didn't express any other view.
>> >Your joke doesn't make sense.
>> The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their*
>> context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery".
>Interesting
You didn't seem to understand it.
>> >> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe!
>> >> Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of
>> >> cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important
>> >> issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours?
>> >I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that.
>> >Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you want
>> >to know my credit card number, too?
>> You can't describe your job without revealing your credit card
>> number?
>Maybe (considering how many salespeople are around it's pretty close
>for that one to happen); anyway, why don't you ask any other poster in the group
>what jobs they have, why you're asking me, when I've already denied to
>tell you?)
Well, Perlie, since I did NOT ask you what your job is, I am at
pains to consider your question. You said that searching for a cure
for herpes in your kitchen cabinet was an "important issue". I said
that my currently important issues is "Power tools" and asked, "What
are yours?" For some reason you brought up your job and credit
card. It's my guess that the kind of person who can't follow a
simple conversation is also likely to believe there's a cure for
herpes in his blender.
Have a nice weekend, Perlie.
Mike
beat...@email.com
Yeah, well, I made a bit of confussion, I've got to admit it.
OK, here is the thing:
Indeed, unlike rats, viruses don't posses an instinct of survival.
On the other hand, to use a more plastic explanation,
the viruses have what we would rather call: "a tendency to
achieve a balance, an equilibrum if you wish,
that is referenced to its default state as a virus; it is done
intrinsically at the quantum level of the virus".
See, I did not call it "instinct of survival".
Scientists had done this already. Just a simple search on google:
Molecules of life come in waves
Compounds found in cells show quantum behaviour.
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=457
by Philip Ball
ne...@nature.com
Physicists have watched biological molecules become waves in a dramatic
demonstration of the effects of quantum mechanics1.
It's not clear that biological molecules act like quantum waves in this
way as they go about their business in living cells. However, physicist
Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford, UK, and psychologist Stuart
Hameroff of the University of Arizona in Tucson have proposed that
consciousness might arise from wave-like quantum-mechanical effects
involving protein filaments called microtubules in nerve cells.
It would be going too far to suggest that the latest observations
provide any support for this idea - for one thing, microtubules are
much bigger and heavier than the molecules used in the new experiment.
But they do demonstrate that the quantum world has wider boundaries
than we might have supposed.
Scientists know that subatomic particles and individual atoms can
behave like waves, in line with the famous quantum notion of
wave-particle duality. But these properties are thought to give way to
classical, billiard-ball-like behaviour as particles get larger.
Quantum mechanics is needed to describe how large molecules vibrate,
spin and move, but the molecules themselves are seen as occupying a
well-defined position at any moment.
Wave-like objects, in contrast, are smeared out. A particle behaving
like a wave can, for example, seem to pass through two slits in a
barrier simultaneously. When this happens, the two waves emerging from
the slits may interfere with each other.
Big waves
Light waves produce a pattern of light and dark bands in two-slit
experiments, where the beams alternately reinforce and cancel each
other. Beams of quantum particles such as electrons generate a similar
pattern.
In 1999, Markus Arndt and colleagues at the University of Vienna,
Austria, reported an interference pattern from a beam of C60 molecules
passed through an array of slits2. These molecules - hollow spheres
made up of 60 carbon atoms, also known as buckyballs - were the biggest
objects shown to exhibit quantum wave-like behaviour.
Now the Vienna group has seen an interference pattern for molecules of
tetraphenylporphyrin (TPP). These plate-shaped molecules are twice the
width of buckyballs. The core of a TPP molecule is a porphyrin chemical
group, which is the key component of light-absorbing chlorophyll in
plants and oxygen-binding haemoglobin in blood.
The researchers have also broken their own record for the heaviest
objects seen to display wave-like interference, using fluorinated C60
molecules.
Mike, don't try to sell me doughnuts.
You wouldn't be THAT PISSED OFF every single time we
discuss about home remedies and you're reminding me
of wooden spoons.
You tried this method too and I don't see what is wrong with it.
It is one method that, by any means, it should have helped us in a way
or another. Again, we don't know it yet why.
>
> >>I *know* that I don't have the
> >> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't
want
> >> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
> >> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities.
>
> >neither do I. However, the type of cure I'm trying to find
> >doesn't require either one of the above mentioned factors.
> >All I need is a little bit of time (it's tough nowadays but I take
it
> >as a hobby,
>
> Go for it.
>
> >I'm passionate about learning these things, that would help me to
> >maintain my general health anyway), money it's all that you pay for
> >a little bit of ingredients, a few bucks here and there. Again,
those
> >things are good for general health.
>
> >Energy? No wonder you lack of energy, Mike, considering the crap
you're
> >eating and avoid eating.
>
> Who said I lack energy, Perlie?
OK, you don't lack energy.
Oh, OK, I quite missed your point, that was comparing a virus to a
machine
and you say I was trying to "humanise" a machine. Sorry. Good one
hehehe.
You, as well.
Perl von Molson
> Mike
beat...@email.com
viruses are being considered in the middle way between
crystals and life forms:
ON THE HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY RELATION
I have always thought that wet seeds from a fresh tomato
illustrate the Heisenberg relation. If you look at a tomato seed
on your plate you may think that you have established both its
position and the fact that it is at rest. But if you try to
measure the location of the seed by pressing your finger or a
spoon on it the seed will slip away. As soon as you measure its
position it begins to move. A similar kind of slipperiness for
real quantum particles is expressed mathematically by the
Heisenberg uncertainty relations.
An important warning must be stated regarding Heisenberg's
uncertainty relation: it does not apply to a single measurement
on a single particle, although people often think of it that way.
Heisenberg's relation is a statement about a statistical average
over lots of measurements of position and momenta. The
uncertainty.has meaning only if you repeat measurements.
Some people imagine that quantum objects like the electron are
"fuzzy" because we cannot measure their position and momentum
simultaneously and they therefore lack objectivity, but that way
of thinking is inaccurate. To get a feeling of what the
Heisenberg relation implies for various objects, we can compare
the product of the size of an object times its typical momentum
to Planck's constant (h) -- a measure of how important quantum
effects are. For a flying tennis ball, the uncertainties due to
quantum theory are one part in about 10^(34). Hence a tennis
ball, to a high degree of accuracy, obeys the deterministic rules
of classical physics. Even for a bacterium, the effects are only
about 1 part in 10^(9), and it really does not experience the
quantum world either. For atoms in a crystal we are getting down
to the quantum world, and the uncertainties are one part in a
hundred. Finally, for electrons moving in an atom the quantum
uncertainties completely dominate and we have entered the true
quantum world governed by the uncertainty relations and quantum
mechanics.
Adapted from: Heinz R. Pagels: The Cosmic Code. Simon & Schuster,
1982.
ScienceWeek http://www.scienceweek.com
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sb030822.htm
beat...@email.com
By Nasif Nahle
Certain thermodynamic systems have provoked polemic in the scientific
neighborhood because, under explicit circumstances, they perform some
macroscopic functions of living beings. I am referring to viruses,
which are particles of nucleic acids contained by a capsule, generally
made of proteins, although some RNA viruses, as some parasitic
particles of plants are uncovered or not contained by a capsid.
The particularity of the viruses is that if they are found in an
abiotic field they would display fixed characteristics of inert beings,
since they are not capable of capturing autonomously the energy from
the environment to redirect it toward specific metabolic processes or
toward definite functions, for example reproduction. Without doubt,
when viruses are found in an abiotic field, they are inert beings.
However, when viruses are positioned in an adequate biotic field,
whenever that biotic field is compatible with the viruses' genomic
sequences, they would be able to replicate themselves taking advantage
of the energy and the catalytic molecules from the biotic medium where
they progress as parasites.
These are macroscopic characteristics of viruses by which some
biologists consider them like living systems, while other biologists
consider that viruses are plainly inert systems.
This is not a matter of dogmas or personal beliefs. Let's analyze the
facts in a simple manner to obtain a coherent closure about the energy
state of the viruses.
1. Viruses cannot situate autonomously in locations of high energy
density fields.
2. The sequence of the genetic material of viruses coincides with the
sequence of certain sections of DNA or RNA of host cells, from here
that the viruses are considered to have been originated as
waste-products derived from the cells that would be their same host
cells in the future.
3. Viruses do not possess cytosol, for which we have demonstrated that
is the exclusive phase of matter that can experiment the energy state
of life.
4. Viruses do not have mitochondria, which are the organelles apt to
capture and store energy for redirect it to the execution of the many
functions of a real living being.
5. Viruses do not possess plasma membrane or internal membranes, which
can experiment the proton motile force.
6. Viruses do not possess membranes capable of being excited by
collisions with photons to hold the energy released after the collision
and after using it in the synthesis of more complex molecules that
could store the energy of activation carried by photons.
7. Viruses do not acquire life during their parasitoid stance in the
host cells since life cannot be transferred or infused, but viruses are
directed by the same host cells to make them to coincide with their own
macroscopic characteristics, which have nothing to see with the quantum
state of life, but with other microstates experimented by autocatalytic
molecules (Nucleic Acids, catalytic proteins, enzymes, etc.).
8. The quantum state of life only can be experimented and maintained by
a specific array of matter, this is to say, only by
completely-incorporated specific positions and movements of the
energetic molecules that comprise a cytosol.
THE MOST PLAUSIBLE CLOSURE ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT VIRUSES ARE NOT LIVING
BEINGS BECAUSE, BY THEIR MACROSCOPIC MOLECULAR STRUCTURE AND
COMPOSITION, THEY CANNOT EXPERIMENT THE QUANTUM STATE OF LIFE.
http://www.biocab.org/Biology.html#anchor_32
beat...@email.com
meaning of life, I found that life can never be transferred, but
maintained by the structures that descend from other still-living
structures. It has been occurring ever since the first protobiont
appeared on Earth.
Life is not something that can be transferred from one system to
another, but a quantum state of a particular organization of the
matter, which is maintained by the descendants of the biosystems.
Life is an energy state experimented by some quasi-stable thermodynamic
systems, which permits them to establish, no-spontaneously, a series of
intervals that delay the diffusion or dispersion of their local energy
to more available microstates.
Thus, life is a thermal property inherent to a definite group of
particles that maintain a particular quantum state which allows those
individual particles to be organized into structures that can increase
their complexity, acquiring the capability of capturing and
manipulating the energy from the cosmos for being conserved in a
thermal state of maximum no-equilibrium and a stable density of energy.
The structures that array on this quantum state maintain a limited
macrostructural order which permits them to reproduce and to conserve
the thermal property by means of a progeny.
Life is a quantum state of a specific organization of structurally
ordered matter. Because life is a quantum state, life cannot be
transferred, induced, embedded or infused to inert structures. Life can
only be maintained. Consequently, all living beings have to replicate
by division of themselves (unicellular organisms) or of their cells
(multicellular organisms) for growing (in the quantity of individuals
or in the complexity of one individual), as to be genetically
perpetuated. Viruses are not cells, but they behave as living beings
because they perpetuate their genomes when they act as parasites. In
this case, viruses replicate by taking control of the infected cells.
Biologists have demonstrated that complete molecules of DNA, or even
pieces of DNA, isolated from the whole living structure, are not living
matter. While they do not be integrated into a living biocomplex, they
are not living but inert molecules. We could place into a flask all the
ingredients needed for the construction of a living being, and we could
add heat, electricity, UV radiation, gamma radiation, or any other
elements we think could generate life in our mixture but we will never
obtain the simplest living form. What we need is to find a process
which can cause the quantum state which would carry to those inert
structures into the biotic field. Photons are the key to do this.
The difference between the maintenance of life in the offspring of a
single cell and the maintenance of life in the offspring of a
multicellular organism is that the unicellular organism divides its
whole living body to continue its life in another unicellular living
being; in contrast, the multicellular organism contributes with one, or
two kinds of living cells (gametes) to perpetuate life in a new living
organism. The similarity between the reproduction of a unicellular
organisms and that of multicellular organisms comes through the process
of gametogenesis (generation of gametes) through meiosis and after the
fusion of two different gametes (spermatozoids and ovules), when the
egg begins to divide for growing and development, or when the gametes
of parthenogenetic organisms divide to develop into a complete
individual (for example in Daphnia pulex).
Sooner or later, life stops of being maintained by a biosystem, but
life is preserved by its progeny. This is why we could give
consideration to the persistence of life in the Universe. Always there
will be living beings in the Universe, whenever the Universe possess
sufficient available energy for the living beings.
UP TO TOP^^
ADDENDUM No. 5- Life is a transitory quantum state evident in a
particular arrangement of matter, which permits this to capture energy
from the environment, increasing the number of possible microstates of
the Universe.
Another way to express it, less complicated than the previous one, is:
Life is an energy state experimented by some quasi-stable thermodynamic
systems, which permits them to establish, no-spontaneously, a series of
intervals that delay the diffusion or dispersion of their local energy
to more available microstates.
Any molecular array that possesses the necessary qualities to remain in
the Biotic Field receives the name of Biosystem. The living beings only
proceed from other living beings. This is the first axiom of Biology,
so called Biogenesis.
The minimum qualities necessary for a biosystem to transitorily persist
in the Biotic Field are:
A) To possess a well-constituted structural order.
B) To have the capacity of auto-replication.
C) To exhibit the potential for Evolution.
Life, as one of the quantum states of the ordered molecular systems,
cannot be transferred, imparted or induced to an inert system, even
when it were a previously alive system, but life can only be maintained
through the reproductive sequence of a biosystem that still be situated
in the Biotic Field. This is the second axiom of Biology, or of the no
transference of Life.
Once the peculiar quantum state of a biosistema is disturbed, it will
be impossible to restore it, whether for natural mechanisms or through
the known biotechnological mechanisms. This obeys to the
irreversibility of the arrow of time, to which every increment in the
global entropy of the Universe is tied. This is the third axiom of
Biology, or Irreversibility of Life.
Life occurs during the formation of stellar systems events (for
example, at some stage in the evolution of our Solar System) due to a
specific positioning of the particles (evidently, photons) in the
points of reciprocity (cooperation) of two or more waves pertaining to
one of the known fields of energy.
Once the distortion in the trajectories of the particles accelerated
has been given, that variation will only stand viable if the adequate
systems exist for maintaining it.
As far as the cosmic place where occurred the distortion of the
particles' trajectories becomes stable and the density of energy
diminishes, the possibilities that the values of the distortion of the
fields be different from zero also decrease. This process will continue
until the probabilities that the value of the distortion in those
places be maintained positive are reduced to zero.
If in that place an inorganic synthesis of protobionts occurs, then, in
that place, the probabilities that the quantum state could be
maintained in those specialized structures would enlarge.
If the place of the stellar system where protobiontes appeared had
environmental conditions favorable for the integrity of the molecular
structure of those living systems, then the quantum state would
temporarily be prolonged as those protobionts remain in the Biotic
Field.
If a biosystem found exhibiting the biological quantum state had the
capacity to auto-replicate, then the distortion in the trajectories of
the particles (I repeat, evidently photons) would continue in each one
of the genetic successors of that biosystem.
If the biosystem that suffered the lost of its quantum state did not
have the capacity of auto-replication, then the quantum state of that
individual would finalize in a given period and the continuity of the
distortion would be lost.
When the biosystem possesses all its biological capacities, but
eventually it suffers a delicate modification in its micro or
macroestructural order or state, then its quantum state would be deeply
modified and the biosystem would disappear (death of the biosystem).
When a species faces a severe modification in the environment where the
species take refuge, and if that species does not possess the essential
characteristics to confront that modification, then the quantum
distortion will finalize on returning to its original state of
particles' equilibrium and the species will be suppressed
(extinction).
If any biosphere in the Universe modified the stability of its thermal
state, then that whole biosphere would disappear. Life (thermal state
of no-equilibrium) at that place would be modified and all the
biosystems existing in that biosphere would disappear.
BACK TO TOP^^
ADDENDUM No. 6- SIZE AND KIND OF ARCHEOBIONTS. How large were the
Archeobionts? Were Archeobionts tiny or giant cells? It is hard to know
how big they were, but we can deduce their size from fossils of
Nummulites. As Nummulites, many Archeobionts might have fused to form
enormous and successful colonies. The only way for those first living
cells to improve the possibilities for surviving on a very hostile
primitive Earth was through the assemblage of millions of archeobionts,
forming many self-protective lots of living matter, which could have
10-300 cm in diameter. Did you know that ovules are giant cells?
Currently, eggs of birds are the biggest cells.
For holozoic archeobionts to survive on the primitive Earth, if they
were isolated cells, we would have to put them at deep oceanic floors,
where they would have not survived by the enormous pressure exerted by
huge volumes of water. No, if archeobionts were tiny isolated cells,
they should be a kind of suspended delicate organisms that would not
survive to solar radiation, deadly atmospheric gases, heat and other
hostile factors. The first Archeobionts had not own movements. Waves
and flows of water constantly moved them at random.
Perhaps, Archeobionts were holozoic organisms, although we cannot
exclude the possibility that Archeobionts had embedded
chromomicrospheres of chlorophyll and other photoreceptors.
Off the record, it sounds more coherent that archeobionts had been
holophytic-holozoic (myxotrophic) protists than only-holozoic protists.
Evolution is an enhancer process, but it not always occurs towards the
greater complexity of the structures, for example viruses.
Evolution usually progress on the road to specialization in spite of a
setback of the structural complexity. Evolution can also occur through
the missing of a function or a structure in favor of the development or
the collapse of a metabolic process that would promote the survival of
any individual facing a specific destructive force of the environment.
However, it does not. It was not like this because someone
"thought" that it was impossible for chlorophyll and other pigments
to come out with their modern molecular complexity. I do not agree on
this, because ribozymes emerged with a ready-to-work high level of
complexity. Besides, the oldest fossils of living beings found are
cyanobacteria (around 3.4 billion years ago), which possessed
chlorophyll and other reacting-to-light pigments.
Why do I think that the archeobionts on Earth were holophytic
organisms? There are many facts sustaining this hypothesis: Holophytic
organisms were the first land organisms on Earth. Plants invaded land
30 million years before than animals did it. The oldest aquatic animal
fossils have been found at strata from 570 million years ago, about 3
billion years latter than the emergence of cyanobacteria. From where
did we deduce that archeobionts were holozoic organisms? Why do most
scientists believe that holozoic archeobionts emerged earlier than
holophytic archeobionts? Do not the cell walls of cyanobacteria confer
them a better resistance against UV radiation, heat, saline water and
other aggressive environmental conditions?
Holophytic organisms could survive even in small ponds and lakes,
especially if holophytic archeobionts fused for developing bulky
complex masses of protoplasm. Cyanobacteria can do it at present, and
cyanobacteria are primitive, holophytic, wall-celled bacteria. The
facts are out there, why have we overlooked them thus far?
http://www.biocab.org/Addenda.html#anchor_40
M2sl...@nospam.invalid
>Only its "offspring" leave//
beatadje writes:
>Are you sure?
Yes, but I've been wrong before.
>Did you read about it?
I swear, I couldn't make this stuff up even if I tried.
Once a virion injects its DNA into the nucleus of a neuron, it is no
longer a complete and functional virion. And it can't pull all its
parts back together again ... any more than Humpty Dumpty.
Its DNA becomes part of the nureon's nucleus and changes the nucleus
into a little virus producing factory.
Granted that's an extremely simplified version of how it works but
that's my understanding.
>> wouldn't matter anyway whether or not a second virion found its way
>> down a neuron that's already infected.
>I think it's very important actually...
>If you know where are the "battlefields" its easier to win the war,
>right?
The point though is that, if a neuron has been previously infected,
the battle is already over. A second virion coming down the pike will
just find itself homeless and/or harmless.
>Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron?
No, it means only one "infection" per neuron no matter whether it's
caused by one virus or twenty.
At least that's my understanding. Maybe Tim will shed some light on
the question.
M2
beat...@email.com
It's pretty clear I have to try to understand more about these things.
I have found quite a lot of info related on jvi where
also if you click on " Similar articles in this journal"
there is more great informative stuff.
Every single question that I am trying to understand has
a puzzle in these journals that need to be put together.
It's quite a task, but I guess that's the only way to do it.
Perl von Molson
Axonal Transport and Sorting of Herpes Simplex Virus Components in a
Mature Mouse Visual System
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/77/11/6117?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1101580821611_1866&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=4000&journalcode=jvi
Anterograde Transport of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 in Cultured,
Dissociated Human and Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/4/1827
beat...@email.com
"It therefore appears that individual neurons can be infected by
hundreds of virions originating at the body surface and still enter the
latent state."
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/2/965
Perl von Molson
> M2
Perl Molson
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsv7f.html
"As shown in the illustrated experiment using the rabbit eye model,
during the initial, acute infection, virus replicates to high levels
at the peripheral site of infection. Infection resolves and virus is
cleared--usually within two weeks. During this period, virus travels
axonally to the sensory nerve ganglion ennervating the site of
infection. There is a period of acute infection in the ganglion;
however, this resolves as the acute infection does. A fraction of
neurons are left with viral DNA present in episomal( genetic unit that
can multiply independently in host cells or when integrated with a
chromosome = Perl's note) form.
Thus, there must be a profound restriction of viral gene expression
so that the cytopathic ( this means dealing with cell disease and
damge = Perl's note)results of productive infection do not occur."
beat...@email.com wrote in message news:<1101582095.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
drew
> On 26 Nov 2004 10:25:53 -0800, beat...@email.com posted:
>
> >M. L. S. wrote:
>
> >> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
> >> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses,
While clearly larger than quanta, it is well established that there is
competion between sperm cells (from the same batch, I might add). So
any argument that follows this logic to the level of viruses is not
without logic. It may be turn out to be incorrect but it is not
illogical.
>
> >So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting.
> >Of course there are things going on at the quantum level.
> >Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does.
>
> Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe
> wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has
> precisely zilch to do with what you are positing. Viruses can no
> more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability than a
> gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself
> operational.
The herpes virus has probably been around as long as humans. A
commensal symbiosis has developed that is probably quite complex. My
own belief is that this occurs primarily at the cellular level and
mostly concerns biochemical reactions but who knows really?
>
> >There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum
> >in order to become viable and functional.
>
> Do you mean "light" waves? No matter. Neither "energies" nor
> "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional".
How do you explain your existence?
Of course, it is
> difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a
> simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more
> basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is
> now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous,
> like most of what you come out with.
No, not ridiculous. And I might add that this is a support group.
You are supposed to be supportive of others, not dismissive of them.
Perl is not posting here out of selfishness, nor do I believe that you
are either. But you should try to be helpful, not sarcastic and
dismissive. Perhaps you have a better grasp of the English language
than some others but it is rather small of you to satirize others in
this group who, in their way are trying to come to understand or deal
with something that is important to them.
>
> >First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a
> >big impediment in curing yourself from it.
>
> More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it
> won't require anyone's belief to be effective.
This is simply not true. There are silver bullet cures out there but
it is well-documented that those who approach the treatment of their
disorders with optimism and faith do much better than those who simply
wait for somebody to cure them and are skeptical to the end.
Second, the BIG
> "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT
> ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*.
Why not?
I *know* that I don't have the
> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want
> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. I am
> quite willing to let someone else pursue it.
That is fair enough. But why sling arrows at those who want to learn
more and those who want to try alternatives to prescription
medication?
And I am quite sure
> that YOU are not that someone else.
Well, with all due respect, if somebody claimed to have an effective
treatment, I doubt that you would try it unless it came in a fancy box
with appropriate labels and was backed by the surgeon general. So
you've pretty much thrown in the towel, Mike. I don't see the herp as
a serious health threat and therefore it won't likely get a lot of
attention by the drug companies beyond what already is out there.
>
> The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their*
> context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery".
Once upon a time that machinery somehow became life. How do you
suppose that happened? I know....you don't have the time to look into
these things but you are convinced, nonetheless that your own limited
mainstream beliefs (and they are beliefs....don't kid yourself) are
correct.
Drew
M.L.S.
>M.L.S. <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<mb5fq0dvsh7484kkg...@4ax.com>...
>> On 26 Nov 2004 10:25:53 -0800, beat...@email.com posted:
>> >M. L. S. wrote:
>> >> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ...
>> >> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses,
>While clearly larger than quanta, it is well established that there is
>competion between sperm cells (from the same batch, I might add). So
>any argument that follows this logic to the level of viruses is not
>without logic. It may be turn out to be incorrect but it is not
>illogical.
It is both incorrect and illogical, and probably worse. It smells
like deconstructionist garbage, which pretends to succeed by turning
everything upside down, shaking it around, putting it in a box,
sawing it in half (purely as an intellectual exercise, understand),
and then triumphantly holding up the mangled mess as some sort of
legitimately reached conclusion. Even a cursory look at your
paragraph there finds you didn't say a n y thing pertinent to the
alleged discussion. You argued via unsupported extraneities (if
that's not a word, it is now.) Your conclusions weren't derived
from your premises. In fact, I can't determine from whence your
premises sprang.
>> >So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting.
>> >Of course there are things going on at the quantum level.
>> >Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does.
>> Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe
>> wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has
>> precisely zilch to do with what you are positing. Viruses can no
>> more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability than a
>> gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself
>> operational.
>The herpes virus has probably been around as long as humans. A
>commensal symbiosis has developed that is probably quite complex. My
>own belief is that this occurs primarily at the cellular level and
>mostly concerns biochemical reactions but who knows really?
Yeah, who knows, really? Maybe this is all some "after dinner
sleep" and monkey boy really didn't fly out of his own butt?
<snort>
Do you have any beliefs that aren't susceptible to being washed out
into the great wishy washy sea with the next wave of "who knows?"?
I do. One of them is that my sitting at this keyboard can no more
be abstracted to cellular functions than the biochemical
functionings of the cells can be abstracted to the sub-atomic
machinations of quanta.
If you can believe what Perlie posits, you can believe absolutely
everything, and consequently: nothing. "Who knows?", in the context
you used it, is the cry of the person who knows nothing.
>> >There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum
>> >in order to become viable and functional.
>> Do you mean "light" waves? No matter. Neither "energies" nor
>> "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional".
>How do you explain your existence?
How do you explain your pretension in thinking that that challenge
is anything but absurd?
The meanings which are assigned to words may seem arbitrary to you,
but only because your resort to the hokey pokey of deconstructionism
has you hanging upside down with your own flimsy arguments. It
isn't the meanings that are arbitrary, just the coding of the glyphs
that we have come to associate with the meanings. "Viable" and
"functional" mean things, and when Perlie juxtaposed "light waves"
and "energy" with "viable" and "functioning" he did so outside those
meanings. In other words, he fomented gibberish.
> Of course, it is
>> difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a
>> simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more
>> basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is
>> now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous,
>> like most of what you come out with.
>No, not ridiculous.
Yes, utterly ridiculous. Especially so in one (Perlie) who, for
years now, has posted multi-hundred line monographs on the
intricacies of sub-microscopic entities while not understanding the
basics of the herpes-human model.
>And I might add that this is a support group.
>You are supposed to be supportive of others, not dismissive of them.
>Perl is not posting here out of selfishness, nor do I believe that you
>are either. But you should try to be helpful, not sarcastic and
>dismissive. Perhaps you have a better grasp of the English language
>than some others but it is rather small of you to satirize others in
>this group who, in their way are trying to come to understand or deal
>with something that is important to them.
It is Perlie's shamanistic gibberish which is non-supportive. Have
you caught his lies about the side-effects of the anti-virals? Have
you checked his moronic recommendations for procedures or
ingredients that might be dangerous to the gullible or
simple-minded?
Perlie has been here about three years, and I HAVE tried to talk to
him, but there's nothing there but more gibberish. At this point,
even sarcasm is too good for him, but letting his crap go unremarked
invites other disservices to the group.
>> >First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a
>> >big impediment in curing yourself from it.
>> More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it
>> won't require anyone's belief to be effective.
>This is simply not true. There are silver bullet cures out there but
>it is well-documented that those who approach the treatment of their
>disorders with optimism and faith do much better than those who simply
>wait for somebody to cure them and are skeptical to the end.
Good grief. I'll repeat: a medical cure will not depend on anyone
believing in it to be successful. A cure will either kill or render
the virus inoperable, outside of any knowledge or belief of the
patient.
>> Second, the BIG "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT
>> ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*.
>Why not?
I don't feel like enrolling in med school.
>> I *know* that I don't have the
>> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want
>> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
>> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. I am
>> quite willing to let someone else pursue it.
>That is fair enough. But why sling arrows at those who want to learn
>more and those who want to try alternatives to prescription
>medication?
Perlie long ago demonstrated that he is not learning "more". He is
a clown act with observable tendencies to float misinformation and
lies.
>> And I am quite sure that YOU are not that someone else.
>Well, with all due respect, if somebody claimed to have an effective
>treatment, I doubt that you would try it unless it came in a fancy box
>with appropriate labels and was backed by the surgeon general. So
>you've pretty much thrown in the towel, Mike. I don't see the herp as
>a serious health threat and therefore it won't likely get a lot of
>attention by the drug companies beyond what already is out there.
Well, as long as YOU don't "see" it "as a serious health threat"...
>> The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their*
>> context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery".
>Once upon a time that machinery somehow became life. How do you
>suppose that happened?
Random chance.
>I know....you don't have the time to look into
>these things but you are convinced, nonetheless that your own limited
>mainstream beliefs (and they are beliefs....don't kid yourself) are
>correct.
It doesn't require "belief" to draw distinctions between heirarchies
of function.
It took 13 billion years for mother nature to build a human. It
took 13 thousand years for humans to build these computers.
Different heirarchies of function. Not confusable. Doesn't require
"belief".
Ta ta,
Mike
Tim Fitzmaurice
> I will have to continue, risking of boring you with my long
> paragraphs ( I apologyse for my grammar and all that).
> These are very important considerations for me.
>
> Viruses, unlike rats or other creatures, doesn't seem to have
> the "survival instinct" as we call it; however, we don't know
> what is going on a a quantum level; maybe there is such thing as
> viral fight for its survival as any other creatures do it all the
> time.
Fight for survival is a bit too macro (as quantum is a bit too fine a
degree to look at)...but yes they have an adaptation for survivial and
reaction (look at triggers). I was not happy with the analogy because it
didn't deal with the fact that some virus stays in neurons, not the idea
of survival.
>>>>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
>>>>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
>>>>> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
>>>
>>> Yes, you won't touch the latent site, but as my ideea goes,
>>> the fact that the transport mechanism will be interrupted will be a
>>> great
>>> impact on the viruses as shedding.
>>
> I don't know about that one, Tim. "burried relatively deep", when
> actually
> the cold water will cool down 30 (thirthy) times faster then cold air
If you do enough to wreck the transport on a permanent basis or deep away
from the skin, you wreck the neuron - thats a BAD idea.
> When immersed in cold water, the blood in the vecinity of the skin
You'll not be hugely interested in th eblood, more the skin cells
themselves.
> will be
> cooled down very fast and that may impact on the viruses situated
> in those areas.
As I said - I could believe a temporary hold up as the system
chills...any more and there's trobule. Neurons aren't like skin cells in
that you can frost burn them off (like say liquid nitrogen therapy for
warts) without leaving permanent issues
I wasn't thinking of a 20 degree swim I was talking a glacial lake at
around 6 or 7 degrees [erm did you get the 20 from the 20-30 0that was
time underwater not temperature].
Its the big lake at the top of Nordfjord and its very very cold as it
comes right off the glacier. No I didnt stay in too long, it was cold but
it was way way more than the parameters you defined therefore it blocks
the absolute statement you were making.
> It must be repetitive in order to be effective;
> if doing this underwater, you or me or anyone else would risk having
Repetition is a new addition to the idea Perl, please don;t throw it in as
if you've always said it. If you have a repetition idea go ahead and
propose it now.
> I would've never imagine, that penguins can get herpes infections,
> too.
Dig around in the past posts Ive made and I put out a list of all the
herpesviruses listed to that point that I knew off....its huge and
includes Oysters....
> Let's not forget that, maybe, the whole point about the cold water
> immersion
> can be rather the immune stimulation (or stress release, as you've
> pointed that out).
>
> You are aware that in order cu cure colds, such cold water immersions
> of cold
> showers help a whole lot.
OK this is going off in another direction...point 1 with this, most of the
symptoms of a cold are immunopathological and swelling related. The
temperature can relieve that - its doesnt really do too much to the virus,
it relieves the body responses (warmth can to with steam etc).
If you wanted to suggest that cold could relieve symptoms of outbreak like
help pain relief, then sure I'd go with that, there is a fair amount in
the lesion that is immunopathology (sweeling, pain etc). Thats perfectly
reasonable.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> So the virus is travelling in two directions? Retrograde from the
> skin cells and anterograde in secondary outbreaks, right?
Basically, yes. There are some very pretty movies people have made with
fluorescent virus particles to show this, speed is in the micrometers per
second scale...last I saw someone had their movies showing fairly clearly
that there seemed ot be two transport streams possibly..though if I
remember correctly it was a nonhuman virus they were looking at.
> Now, this
> is where there seems to be some debate. There must be significant
> replication of virus at the basal ganglia to facilitate a secondary
> outbreak at the surface, yet little is mentioned about this mechanism
> in the sensory neuron nucleus.
There is a fair amount on this stage of the lifecycle out there in pubmed.
The retrograde stuff was done along time ago. THe anterograde stuff is
more recent. Various people have posted a quicktime move of the lifecycle
thats commonly available...
> The focus seems to be more upon using HSV for gene therapy as it so
> effectively delivers a payload to the neurons...maybe replace missing
> transmitter substance or whatever.
That is one big area. Adeno and retroviral gene therapy is a bit further
advanced but herpesviruses can hit neurons specifically and non-dividing
ones at that (though I think someone may have solved that for the
retros...)
> And also, I haven't read anything about direct cell to cell spread.
> How is this facilitated? Are there channels in the lipid bilayer of
> an intact cell that allow for movement of the virus outside of the
> cytoplasm?
Don't think its nailed down yet. THere's some work looking at how certain
glycoporteins help target the virus to be shuttled to cell junctions
rather than waiting for a lysis event. I'd suggest its possibly the same
sort of mechanism the virus uses to get out of neurons without lysing
them.
There are a bunch of compounds out there being looked at to block this
sort of event, dendrimers, certain polysaccharides (this is where some the
red marine algae work moved to), heparan suphonated compounds etc.
Some of these seem to work by getting into the spaces between cell
junctions.
> I thought that the whole basis of cell to cell contact was
> based upon the theory of lysis and release of viral particles. Is
> this a mechanism involved in asymptomatic shedding of viral particles?
Not sure, I don't think anyone really is, shedding is such a pain to get a
handle on due to it being relatively indetectable. It certainly could be,
but the scale of shedding from an individual is a bit higher than so there
is room for small numbers of lysis events to produce the virus as well as
cell to cell spread and release. Biology being biology it probably uses
both depending on whats working at the time.
Tim Fitzmaurice
>> Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron?
>
> No, it means only one "infection" per neuron no matter whether it's
> caused by one virus or twenty.
>
> At least that's my understanding. Maybe Tim will shed some light on
> the question.
Its the basic idea, how well it holds up is a bit more open for debate,
though it does seem to hold quite well. However, quite a bit harks back to
the superinfection ideas from bacteriophage studies - ie the infecting
virus tries to stop others coming in. I think I've heard that its been
done experimentally though (superinfection that is). How much thats
possible in vivo is a different matter - if the barrier is high enough it
won't work in a body to any routine level but you could breach it in the lab.
THere are certainly routinely more than one copy of DNA in a latent cell
which is a change fromthe original ideas - quick note on the paper Perl
pulled out - the important bit they are pointing out is that they
demonstrate you can have multiple copies of virus infection (ie in the
cell) and still have it latent - the old original idea was that multiple
copies meant replication and hence the start of the infectious cycle - its
not stating its multiple viruses entering - but it lacks the context to
make that obvious - at least thats my reading of it). That was 99 and its
really that time that the techniques were developing and used.
Last person I asked who looked at this said they were the same. Where
those multiple copies come from is I think up for guesswork....is it
multiple viruses getting in at the same initial infection, is it
generated as the virus retrogrades, or is it accumulation as the virus
infection reactivates....that last I think is weakened by the paper Perl
listed, since they were on the acute cycle. However I do know one person
who was looking at cell copy number of HSV DNA over time and I think he
said it increased. So basically its a bit of an unknown. As with anything
related to latency the old ideas are having to shift a bit as it became
apparent that latency is not a quiescent staet but a fairly dynamic one
What you really need to do is take two tagged HSV strains, infect the two
together or at time intervals and look to see whether the two strains
colocalise to the same cell. I've not seen that done yet though ti might
be out there.....its huge project and it down at the basic biology level
rather than being an applied project.
M.L.S.
>M.L.S. <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<8jrjq0hti4ppk4q74...@4ax.com>...
>Drew wrote:
>> >And I might add that this is a support group.
>> >You are supposed to be supportive of others, not dismissive of them.
>> >Perl is not posting here out of selfishness, nor do I believe that you
>> >are either. But you should try to be helpful, not sarcastic and
>> >dismissive. Perhaps you have a better grasp of the English language
>> >than some others but it is rather small of you to satirize others in
>> >this group who, in their way are trying to come to understand or deal
>> >with something that is important to them.
>> It is Perlie's shamanistic gibberish which is non-supportive. Have
>> you caught his lies about the side-effects of the anti-virals? Have
>> you checked his moronic recommendations for procedures or
>> ingredients that might be dangerous to the gullible or
>> simple-minded?
>The internet is full of information and disinformation. If you want
>to counter ideas that you think are incorrect because you are afraid
>that some others may believe them and hurt themselves, that could be
>helpful but sarcasm is never useful. It puts people on the defensive
>and makes many reluctant to post ideas for fear that they will be
>subjected to ridicule. That is not a positive contribution from you.
You may or may not have noticed that I use my sarcasm selectively,
even though I apply it rather obviously.
>I have clicked onto some of Perl's links. The ones I have read are
>scientific papers published in reputable journals. I have read some
>of his ideas. I don't think he has a good understanding of viruses,
>but in that respect he is no different from many here, including
>yourself.
Do tell? In what specific respect would you say my "understanding
of viruses" is lacking?
>> Perlie has been here about three years, and I HAVE tried to talk to
>> him, but there's nothing there but more gibberish. At this point,
>> even sarcasm is too good for him, but letting his crap go unremarked
>> invites other disservices to the group.
>If it is gibberish, why do you get yourself into such a lather about
>it?
You're not being very supportive. Why is that?
>> >> >First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a
>> >> >big impediment in curing yourself from it.
>> >> More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it
>> >> won't require anyone's belief to be effective.
>> >This is simply not true. There are silver bullet cures out there but
>> >it is well-documented that those who approach the treatment of their
>> >disorders with optimism and faith do much better than those who simply
>> >wait for somebody to cure them and are skeptical to the end.
>> Good grief. I'll repeat: a medical cure will not depend on anyone
>> believing in it to be successful. A cure will either kill or render
>> the virus inoperable, outside of any knowledge or belief of the
>> patient.
>There aren't that many 'cures' out there for anything and there
>probably won't be one for herpes in your lifetime. There are,
>however, many treatments for managing disease that work better when
>the patient is optimistic and does everything he can to help the
>treatment work. That includes diet, a positive attitude, exercise,
>and knowledge of the medical condition. This may sound like nonesense
>to you but it is critical to the success of treating most medical
>disorders including this one.
Oh, I'm sorry! I thought we were talking about a "cure". I guess I
must have skipped over the part where you tried to switch the
context of the argument in order to undercut a point I made.
... or did I?
>> >> Second, the BIG "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT
>> >> ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*.
>> >Why not?
>> I don't feel like enrolling in med school.
>You don't have to be a medical student to learn more about viruses and
>how they work, and the possible treatments that have been studied.
Gosh. What would I have to be if I wanted to cure herpes?
>> >> I *know* that I don't have the
>> >> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want
>> >> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to
>> >> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. I am
>> >> quite willing to let someone else pursue it.
>> >That is fair enough. But why sling arrows at those who want to learn
>> >more and those who want to try alternatives to prescription
>> >medication?
>> Perlie long ago demonstrated that he is not learning "more". He is
>> a clown act with observable tendencies to float misinformation and
>> lies.
>OK, then counter that misinformation with INFORMATION, not personal
>attacks. That is the way to serve the people of this newsgroup.
>Simple naysaying is unproductive and not supportive of the people you
>claim to care about.
I use various means to debunk or deride Perlie's stupidity, as I see
fit. And I think I must have gotten through monkey boy's thick
skull a couple days ago because he admitted he was "confussed" and
possibly retracted at least one of his more obviously bent notions.
>> >> And I am quite sure that YOU are not that someone else.
>> >Well, with all due respect, if somebody claimed to have an effective
>> >treatment, I doubt that you would try it unless it came in a fancy box
>> >with appropriate labels and was backed by the surgeon general. So
>> >you've pretty much thrown in the towel, Mike. I don't see the herp as
>> >a serious health threat and therefore it won't likely get a lot of
>> >attention by the drug companies beyond what already is out there.
>> Well, as long as YOU don't "see" it "as a serious health threat"...
>More sarcasm. That's OK. Two questions for you. Do you think that
>herpes is a serious health threat? Do you think it is a priority for
>medical researchers?
Herpes is a serious health threat for some people. And it has a
great deal of interest for medical researchers.
I find the common notion that interest in finding additional
treatments or cures for herpes is insignificant to be small-minded
and ignorant.
>> >> The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their*
>> >> context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery".
>> >Once upon a time that machinery somehow became life. How do you
>> >suppose that happened?
>> Random chance.
>Have you considered how much random chance is involved in making a
>simple cell? Less than this, just consider how much chance is
>required to create a simple protein molecule from amino acids. Have
>you thought about the structure of the cell and how the organelles are
>contained in a lipid bilayer cell wall and that the constituents of
>that cell wall are necessary for the containment of the process of DNA
>to RNA to protein synthesis. Yet the proteins of that cell wall are
>themselves products of protein synthesis. Have you considered how
>unlikely it is that random chance could be the answer?
You're mixing up different things. The machinery was built over
nearly countless eons as a consequence of variation reacting to
chance. The constructed machines do not operate by chance. A cell
does not one day become a hot air balloon.
>> >I know....you don't have the time to look into
>> >these things but you are convinced, nonetheless that your own limited
>> >mainstream beliefs (and they are beliefs....don't kid yourself) are
>> >correct.
>> It doesn't require "belief" to draw distinctions between heirarchies
>> of function.
>What is it that determines the quaternary structure of proteins? When
>we're not sure about a theory or it isn't quite perfectly worked
>out...like evolution or how an embryo develops spatially into a human
>being, we are left with the belief that a certain theory has enough
>merit to consider it correct. Distinctions in science are drawn for
>the sake of creating a working model. They are helpful but imperfect.
> Competition between sperm cells would have been considered nonsense
>30 years ago. Competition was only supposed to occur at the level of
>the individual animal.
>So yes, especially if you are not a scientist yourself, drawing
>distinctions between heirachies of function is largely an item of
>faith. You believe in science and the scientific method and you
>accept the state of the art information that is provided to you even
>if you don't really understand it.
There ya go with your deconstructionist bullshit again. Pulling
things apart until one doesn't understand them isn't proof that one
can't understand things. Doing so is modern idiocy dressed up in
cross-eyed conceit.
If you wanted to establish a referential relationship between HSV
viruses and the packets of quanta which make up its or its
surrounding environment's atoms you might like to point to a
mechanism for maintaining such a reference, but opining that there
are many things we don't understand does not conjur such a mechanism
into being.
I think it's definitely something you should tackle, though. Keep
in mind that atoms are about as tiny, compared to viruses, as
viruses are to humans.
And when you're done mulling it over, how about getting together
with Perlie and deciding what it has to do with the support group.
>> It took 13 billion years for mother nature to build a human. It
>> took 13 thousand years for humans to build these computers.
>I'm not sure of the point that you are making here.
I bet you're not.
Mike
Tim Fitzmaurice
> I am a little confused about the role of the neuron cell bodies in the
The cell body itself isn't particularly special bar the fact it happens to
be in the ganglion and it happens to contain the nucleus, where the virion
gets transported and deposits the viral DNA. Its more a focus on the
nucleus of the cell than the body itself.
> production of new viral particles but if I understand correctly, the
> axons can be equated with the cytoplasm of a skin cell.
The axon is more just a specialised pseudopod/extrusion...its
exceptionally long and associated with myelinating cells in the sensory
nerves but at the core its a protrusion of the cell and contains, as you
say, cytoplasm, cytoskeletal elements etc. Its a bit specialised so
various bits in there are neuron specific.
> I wonder if there is a way to slow the axonal transport of newly
> formed viral particles from the basal ganglia? If that transport
> mechanism could be interrupted, there would be no such thing as a
> secondary infection.
If you can get something specific enough, yes. You would probably want to
block the virus proteins binding site for the transport system rather than
the transport system itself if you could get a molecule to do that.
> Of course you don't want to monkey around too much with your sensory
> neurons, or you won't feel anything at all down there. :-0
Exactly...
drew
thanks, this is helpful.
if you know good internet sources of info, please share them (pubmed?). thanx again
drew
M.L.S.
>thanks, this is helpful.
>if you know good internet sources of info, please share them (pubmed?). thanx again
>drew
Ooooo, see the pretty moving pictures...
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/movieindex.html
More pretty animations...
http://www-ermm.cbcu.cam.ac.uk/99000393h.htm
Hell, here's my other "Morphology" bookmarks...
http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/Big_Virology/BVDNAherpes.html
http://faculty.niagara.edu/mgallo/315f97/chris.html
http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/virarch.html
http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/herpes.html
http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/cpe.html
http://www.bartleby.com/107/200.html
http://www.ohsu.edu/som-neurosurgery/neuropathicpain/sld102.htm
http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/images/factsheets/shingles.gif
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvimg04z.jpg
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvresrch.html
Hope that helps,
Mike
Tim Fitzmaurice
> thanks, this is helpful.
> if you know good internet sources of info, please share them (pubmed?).
Pubmed is a database I've cited here sevral times, its probably worth it
again.
or the full URL
is a primary citation database that records anything attached to the Index
Medicus. Also on the site are access points for various sequence databases
and comparison tools but it is open access.
Perl Molson
>
> > I will have to continue, risking of boring you with my long
> > paragraphs ( I apologyse for my grammar and all that).
> > These are very important considerations for me.
> >
> > Viruses, unlike rats or other creatures, doesn't seem to have
> > the "survival instinct" as we call it; however, we don't know
> > what is going on a a quantum level; maybe there is such thing as
> > viral fight for its survival as any other creatures do it all the
> > time.
>
> Fight for survival is a bit too macro (as quantum is a bit too fine a
> degree to look at)...but yes they have an adaptation for survivial and
> reaction (look at triggers). I was not happy with the analogy because it
> didn't deal with the fact that some virus stays in neurons, not the idea
> of survival.
>
I've posted an article in here where the author, a biologist suggests
that herpes does not have anything to do with the quantum energy,
therefore
all my presumption reaches the bottom line: herpes has no life of
survival
instinct or something similar.
For now I will stick with this supposition.
> >>>>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius)
> >>>>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this
> >>>>> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, you won't touch the latent site, but as my ideea goes,
> >>> the fact that the transport mechanism will be interrupted will be a
> >>> great
> >>> impact on the viruses as shedding.
> >>
> > I don't know about that one, Tim. "burried relatively deep", when
> > actually
> > the cold water will cool down 30 (thirthy) times faster then cold air
>
> If you do enough to wreck the transport on a permanent basis or deep away
> from the skin, you wreck the neuron - thats a BAD idea.
>
Yeah, I know, that's not my intention to wreck the neuron.
All I am saying is that the virus situated on the shedding areas does
not
like when the skin is immersed in 5 degree centigrade water.
Eventually, the viruses situated in the shedding areas will all
"perish"(I've added more points below).
If there is no asymptomatic shedding, all the viral problems
might be gone. Even though there are still functional viral fragments
inside
the ganglia those would not be able to, like a Phoenix Bird, give
rebirth
of viral activity (travel along the axon towards the skin areas) that
would become again shedding areas. Those newly arrived viruses will be
defeted by the immune system. Let's not forget that, from the outside
of the
neurons to the shedding areas of the skin/mucosa, there is a
portion in between, where the immune system can destroy the virueses
trying to exit the neuron.
OK, I guess I've should've mention a repetitive type of therapy.
There are a quite limited procedures out there in the medical field
that would work on a one time basis.
I didn't mean to just simply go in a water as in a baptism ceremony.
That's
not what I'm talking about.
Let's not forget that the viruses will continue to shed and travel
along
the axon for an extended ammount of time during an out break.
By creating such an environment for the viruses that will reach the
skin surface
we will be able to offer that barrier for our body that, at one point
in time
will defeat the viruses from continuing to shed and cause symptoms.
So again, it is not a matter of hours it may take a few weeks
eventually,
if not a whole summer.
Persistance is good when dealing with herpes simplex.
As a consideration, I have to say that I have no more
problems whatsoever with genital herpes; I have had problem afterward
I stop having those problems, with the labial herpes mostly due to
an injury to my jaw, teeth cavities and such.
It was painful and I luckily I have to say it wasn't there involved
Herpes Zoster as I initially thought is was.
I had after using tea tree oil and other iritating (creams) such as
capsaicin containing creams, a red rush on my lower side below the
lower lip,
but it was simply a rush and not a Herpes Zoster outbreak.
I've used self biofeedback type of treatment and I got cured, along
with disinfecting the infected root chanal on my teeth.
I've also used a solution to solve the inflammation
in the same lower lip areas, that was an Ethanol with Melissa 96%.
>
> > I would've never imagine, that penguins can get herpes infections,
> > too.
>
> Dig around in the past posts Ive made and I put out a list of all the
> herpesviruses listed to that point that I knew off....its huge and
> includes Oysters....
>
There was discovered an ice worm, that survives only inside the ice
and uses some movement through tiny cracks inside the ice.
That worm cannot survive in temperatures higher than 5 centigrade.
Just as an addition to all these.
> > Let's not forget that, maybe, the whole point about the cold water
> > immersion
> > can be rather the immune stimulation (or stress release, as you've
> > pointed that out).
> >
> > You are aware that in order cu cure colds, such cold water immersions
> > of cold
> > showers help a whole lot.
>
> OK this is going off in another direction...point 1 with this, most of the
> symptoms of a cold are immunopathological and swelling related. The
> temperature can relieve that - its doesnt really do too much to the virus,
> it relieves the body responses (warmth can to with steam etc).
Well, I don't know how it works; all I can see is the results
of my herpes simplex genital problems had dissapeared. I know
folks would like to say now that it would went away by itself but it's
not
the case. Not considering the ammount of arginine containing foods
that
I was eating (right now I use Lysine capsules as well just
preventively
but even before this I didn't get OB's comparing to the
times earlier, prior to my river baths, when I would've gotten
OB's quite often.
>
> If you wanted to suggest that cold could relieve symptoms of outbreak like
> help pain relief, then sure I'd go with that, there is a fair amount in
> the lesion that is immunopathology (sweeling, pain etc). Thats perfectly
> reasonable.
>
Again, I am not quite sure how all these work and I did not find
any literature in this respect. I think more studies should be done
regarding the cold water treatment, in special in higly oxigenated
rivers that come down from the glacier melts.
Perl von Molson
> Tim