Dead viruses
32 views
Skip to first unread message
punter
Mar 8, 2012, 5:09:18 PM3/8/12
to Vaccination-Respectful Debate
I barely have a Year 8 level of scientific literacy apparently. So
along with my question about small pox (which no doubt only displayed
my ignorance which is why everybody ignored it) I would also like to
know what a "dead" or "attenuated" virus means?
It must have been from back in Year 8 but I always remembered that
viruses were never actually alive - so how do you kill them? How do
you know they are dead?
If the HI virus (and many others) can stay in our bodies for years -
decades even - just sitting there twiddling its thumbs before
exploding in an orgy of pathogenesis how do immunologists/virologists
etc know that when they inject a so called "dead" virus into someone
they aren't just injecting them with something that will sit around
and twiddle its thumbs for a couple of years (or months or days) and
then explode and kill the poor vaccine recipient?
along with my question about small pox (which no doubt only displayed
my ignorance which is why everybody ignored it) I would also like to
know what a "dead" or "attenuated" virus means?
It must have been from back in Year 8 but I always remembered that
viruses were never actually alive - so how do you kill them? How do
you know they are dead?
If the HI virus (and many others) can stay in our bodies for years -
decades even - just sitting there twiddling its thumbs before
exploding in an orgy of pathogenesis how do immunologists/virologists
etc know that when they inject a so called "dead" virus into someone
they aren't just injecting them with something that will sit around
and twiddle its thumbs for a couple of years (or months or days) and
then explode and kill the poor vaccine recipient?
Mike Mayfield
Mar 12, 2012, 6:51:32 PM3/12/12
to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
Seeing as you asked nicely:
"Alive or Dead?". This debate has been going on for years in scientific circles. Viruses are not "alive" in the sense that they have the same biological mechanisms that we see in humans, plants, animals, etc.The currently popular scientific opinion is that they simply exist in a grey area between "life" and "a piece of chemistry". Check out this article in Scientific American from a few years back.
"Alive or Dead?". This debate has been going on for years in scientific circles. Viruses are not "alive" in the sense that they have the same biological mechanisms that we see in humans, plants, animals, etc.The currently popular scientific opinion is that they simply exist in a grey area between "life" and "a piece of chemistry". Check out this article in Scientific American from a few years back.
How are viruses "killed"?
Well once again, the terminology here is perhaps a little confusing. It's not that they are "killed", because of course if you want to play with word definitions, you can't kill something which isn't alive. It's that they are prevented from replicating, which is the primary (almost the only) function of a virus. In laypersons terms this makes them "dead". A virus works by getting itself inside your cells, hijacking your own cellular machinery to enable it to reproduce rapidly, then bursting out and spreading the copies of itself around, destroying the cell in the process. Multiply this a million times and you see you have a serious problem. There are ways of destroying a virus's ability to replicate, rendering the virus inert. This is how a "killed" vaccine is produced. There are advantages and disadvantages to this type of vaccine.
How are viruses "attenuated"?
To understand this, a rudimentary understanding of the principles of evolutionary biology is required. To cut a long story short, a virus is selected over many generations of replication in a laboratory to be weaker than the original. The weakened version is used for the vaccine. This gives the body a very high probability of quickly destroying the virus, but provokes a longer lasting immune response than a "killed" virus does.
How do you know it's dead?
Very extensive tests are carried out to ensure that all virus particles in the vaccine have been "killed" and cannot replicate. However in the very early days it is true that there were problems. A few viruses were surviving the execution process and one particularly tragic one was with an early polio vaccine which infected 200 children. It wasn't through negligence. At the time they were operating at the very limits of scientific understanding of immunology and infectious disease processes. Things have changed a lot since then and extremely reliable techniques have been developed to kill viruses for vaccines, and well as huge advances in testing and observing virus activity.
But what about the ones which stay in our bodies for years?
They're not "killed". They still have the ability to replicate. This is called "viral latency". They're two completely different things. A latent virus is very clever (for something which doesn't think). A killed virus is simply dead - it cannot replicate.
Katie Brockie
Mar 12, 2012, 9:14:33 PM3/12/12
to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
To add to the virus explanation: When a virus "dies", it disintegrates back into proteins and bits of chemicals. I guess the proteins are probably eaten by bacteria.
cheers
K
cheers
K
punter
Mar 12, 2012, 9:32:29 PM3/12/12
to Vaccination-Respectful Debate
Thanks Mike, but you didn't really answer the question (although
Ashley sort of did in the Hep B thread and I will provide a more
detailed response to him later).
But neither of your responses have provided the basis to explain how
it could be that say the HI or varicella or Epstein Barr viruses can
stay 'dormant' in our bodies. How do researchers know the difference
between dormant viruses and dead ones? Presumably it can't be because
of their behaviour which would appear the same. I suppose it could be
apparent in their structure (although I am not confident that
researchers genuinely understand the structures well enough to make
such a claim) but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was
Ashley's implication as to how a virus could be 'killed' although it
isn't clear to me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this
way) can become 'renatured' in the right environment (which would
presumably mean the human body).
>Very extensive tests are carried out to ensure that all virus particles in
the vaccine have been "killed" and cannot replicate.<
Telling me that very extensive tests are carried out doesn't answer
the question. If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more
then what test could have possibly shown that they were still able to
replicate (at will presumably)? And if they did have this test (which
told us when and how viral particles would multiply and become
pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they could predict almost
exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
At any rate I hope the "very extensive tests" are slightly more
extensive than the ones they used to 'prove' the Fluvax was perfectly
safe for toddlers. Indeed I hope they are significantly more extensive
than just providing one group of people a vaccine and another group of
people a poison and declaring that because the rate of side effects
was much the same between the two groups the vaccine must be safe
(because of nuance).
But for some reason I just have this feeling that whenever someone
speaking for the medical industry says something is 'tested
extensively' what that actually means is that the researchers started
out with the assumption that their theory was correct, didn't look for
anything that would undermine this belief and when they inevitably
didn't find it declared this non-finding to be proof positive of the
veracity of their claims.
PS I should say though that my point here is not that I believe for a
second that vaccines can cause the disease that they are supposed to
protect against, it is to show the fundamental incoherence of the germ
theory/vaccination paradigm. I don't believe that that there is such a
thing as a pathogenic virus. Indeed I believe, inasmuch as I believe
that viruses do anything, that they work endogenously not exogenously
with the body to help in its healing. The fact that it isn't in anyway
obvious how researchers could possibly know whether any of the
concoction of proteins etc that they inject into children is "alive"
or "dead" means nothing to me - but I am sure it means something to
many parents.
> *"Alive or Dead?".* This debate has been going on for years in scientific
>
> *How are viruses "killed"?*
Ashley sort of did in the Hep B thread and I will provide a more
detailed response to him later).
But neither of your responses have provided the basis to explain how
it could be that say the HI or varicella or Epstein Barr viruses can
stay 'dormant' in our bodies. How do researchers know the difference
between dormant viruses and dead ones? Presumably it can't be because
of their behaviour which would appear the same. I suppose it could be
apparent in their structure (although I am not confident that
researchers genuinely understand the structures well enough to make
such a claim) but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was
Ashley's implication as to how a virus could be 'killed' although it
isn't clear to me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this
way) can become 'renatured' in the right environment (which would
presumably mean the human body).
>Very extensive tests are carried out to ensure that all virus particles in
the vaccine have been "killed" and cannot replicate.<
the question. If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more
then what test could have possibly shown that they were still able to
replicate (at will presumably)? And if they did have this test (which
told us when and how viral particles would multiply and become
pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they could predict almost
exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
At any rate I hope the "very extensive tests" are slightly more
extensive than the ones they used to 'prove' the Fluvax was perfectly
safe for toddlers. Indeed I hope they are significantly more extensive
than just providing one group of people a vaccine and another group of
people a poison and declaring that because the rate of side effects
was much the same between the two groups the vaccine must be safe
(because of nuance).
But for some reason I just have this feeling that whenever someone
speaking for the medical industry says something is 'tested
extensively' what that actually means is that the researchers started
out with the assumption that their theory was correct, didn't look for
anything that would undermine this belief and when they inevitably
didn't find it declared this non-finding to be proof positive of the
veracity of their claims.
PS I should say though that my point here is not that I believe for a
second that vaccines can cause the disease that they are supposed to
protect against, it is to show the fundamental incoherence of the germ
theory/vaccination paradigm. I don't believe that that there is such a
thing as a pathogenic virus. Indeed I believe, inasmuch as I believe
that viruses do anything, that they work endogenously not exogenously
with the body to help in its healing. The fact that it isn't in anyway
obvious how researchers could possibly know whether any of the
concoction of proteins etc that they inject into children is "alive"
or "dead" means nothing to me - but I am sure it means something to
many parents.
> *"Alive or Dead?".* This debate has been going on for years in scientific
> circles. Viruses are not "alive" in the sense that they have the same
> biological mechanisms that we see in humans, plants, animals, etc.The
> currently popular scientific opinion is that they simply exist in a grey
> area between "life" and "a piece of chemistry". Check out this article in
> Scientific American from a few years back.
>
> Are Viruses Alive?<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004>
> biological mechanisms that we see in humans, plants, animals, etc.The
> currently popular scientific opinion is that they simply exist in a grey
> area between "life" and "a piece of chemistry". Check out this article in
> Scientific American from a few years back.
>
>
> *How are viruses "killed"?*
>
> Well once again, the terminology here is perhaps a little confusing. It's
> not that they are "killed", because of course if you want to play with word
> definitions, you can't kill something which isn't alive. It's that they are
> prevented from replicating, which is the primary (almost the only) function
> of a virus. In laypersons terms this makes them "dead". A virus works by
> getting itself inside your cells, hijacking your own cellular machinery to
> enable it to reproduce rapidly, then bursting out and spreading the copies
> of itself around, destroying the cell in the process. Multiply this a
> million times and you see you have a serious problem. There are ways of
> destroying a virus's ability to replicate, rendering the virus inert. This
> is how a "killed" vaccine is produced. There are advantages and
> disadvantages to this type of vaccine.
>
> *How are viruses "attenuated"?*
> Well once again, the terminology here is perhaps a little confusing. It's
> not that they are "killed", because of course if you want to play with word
> definitions, you can't kill something which isn't alive. It's that they are
> prevented from replicating, which is the primary (almost the only) function
> of a virus. In laypersons terms this makes them "dead". A virus works by
> getting itself inside your cells, hijacking your own cellular machinery to
> enable it to reproduce rapidly, then bursting out and spreading the copies
> of itself around, destroying the cell in the process. Multiply this a
> million times and you see you have a serious problem. There are ways of
> destroying a virus's ability to replicate, rendering the virus inert. This
> is how a "killed" vaccine is produced. There are advantages and
> disadvantages to this type of vaccine.
>
>
> To understand this, a rudimentary understanding of the principles of
> evolutionary biology is required. To cut a long story short, a virus is
> selected over many generations of replication in a laboratory to be weaker
> than the original. The weakened version is used for the vaccine. This gives
> the body a very high probability of quickly destroying the virus, but
> provokes a longer lasting immune response than a "killed" virus does.
>
> *How do you know it's dead?*
> To understand this, a rudimentary understanding of the principles of
> evolutionary biology is required. To cut a long story short, a virus is
> selected over many generations of replication in a laboratory to be weaker
> than the original. The weakened version is used for the vaccine. This gives
> the body a very high probability of quickly destroying the virus, but
> provokes a longer lasting immune response than a "killed" virus does.
>
>
> Very extensive tests are carried out to ensure that all virus particles in
> the vaccine have been "killed" and cannot replicate. However in the very
> early days it is true that there were problems. A few viruses were
> surviving the execution process and one particularly tragic one was with an
> early polio vaccine which infected 200 children. It wasn't through
> negligence. At the time they were operating at the very limits of
> scientific understanding of immunology and infectious disease processes.
> Things have changed a lot since then and extremely reliable techniques have
> been developed to kill viruses for vaccines, and well as huge advances in
> testing and observing virus activity.
>
> *But what about the ones which stay in our bodies for years?*
> Very extensive tests are carried out to ensure that all virus particles in
> the vaccine have been "killed" and cannot replicate. However in the very
> early days it is true that there were problems. A few viruses were
> surviving the execution process and one particularly tragic one was with an
> early polio vaccine which infected 200 children. It wasn't through
> negligence. At the time they were operating at the very limits of
> scientific understanding of immunology and infectious disease processes.
> Things have changed a lot since then and extremely reliable techniques have
> been developed to kill viruses for vaccines, and well as huge advances in
> testing and observing virus activity.
>
Mike Mayfield
Mar 13, 2012, 9:45:23 PM3/13/12
to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
But neither of your responses have provided the basis to explain how it could be that say the HI or varicella or Epstein Barr viruses can stay 'dormant' in our bodies.
Google "virus latency". I'll help:
Then buy this book:
How do researchers know the difference between dormant viruses and dead ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear the same. I suppose it could be apparent in their structure
Correct.
(although I am not confident that researchers genuinely understand the structures well enough to make such a claim)
Your level of confidence is not really relevant to where the current scientific understanding is actually at. Long after Magellan's expedition circumnavigated the world in the early 1500s there were still people who feared falling off the edge of the earth if they travelled too far across the sea.
but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was Ashley's implication as to how a virus could be 'killed' although it isn't clear to me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become 'renatured' in the right environment (which would
presumably mean the human body).
Google "viral inactivation methods"
If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more then what test could have possibly shown that they were still able to replicate (at will presumably)?
I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still "alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you need a test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? And no it doesn't really do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is normally in the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV).
And if they did have this test (which told us when and how viral particles would multiply and become pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they could predict almost exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
Even if they did have a test to show exactly when dormant viral particles would multiply (which they don't), you couldn't predict when a patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck these days you can't even predict if a patient will die from HIV infection, because the antiviral drugs are getting better.
But for some reason I just have this feeling that whenever someone speaking for the medical industry says something is 'tested extensively' what that actually means is that the researchers started out with the assumption that their theory was correct, didn't look for anything that would undermine this belief and when they inevitably didn't find it declared this non-finding to be proof positive of the veracity of their claims.
When they say it has been tested extensively, I usually take that to mean that it has been tested extensively. I generally don't try to read conspiracies or incompetence into it.
I don't believe that that there is such a thing as a pathogenic virus. Indeed I believe, inasmuch as I believe that viruses do anything, that they work endogenously not exogenously with the body to help in its healing.
If you can provide substantial evidence for that, a lot of textbooks will need to be pulped. It's hard to do, but there are a select number of individuals who have done the hard yards and managed to totally overturn long-held scientific conventions and wisdom. The prize is usually an all expenses paid trip to dinner with the King and Queen of Sweden. I like the idea of a holiday in Sweden and meeting the Royal Family there. I'm sure you would too.
The fact that it isn't in anyway obvious how researchers could possibly know whether any of the concoction of proteins etc that they inject into children is "alive" or "dead" means nothing to me - but I am sure it means something to many parents.
That it's not obvious to you, does not mean it isn't obvious to many others.
punter
Mar 14, 2012, 12:09:24 AM3/14/12
to Vaccination-Respectful Debate
<If you can provide substantial evidence for that, a lot of textbooks
will
need to be pulped. It's hard to do, but there are a select number of
individuals who have done the hard yards and managed to totally
overturn
long-held scientific conventions and wisdom. The prize is usually an
all
expenses paid trip to dinner with the King and Queen of Sweden. I like
the
idea of a holiday in Sweden and meeting the Royal Family there. I'm
sure
you would too. >
Really? That's fantastic!
will
need to be pulped. It's hard to do, but there are a select number of
individuals who have done the hard yards and managed to totally
overturn
long-held scientific conventions and wisdom. The prize is usually an
all
expenses paid trip to dinner with the King and Queen of Sweden. I like
the
idea of a holiday in Sweden and meeting the Royal Family there. I'm
sure
you would too. >
Here is my proof:
Doctors don't have the lifespan of a World War One pilot. Indeed, even
those people who you would expect to be the most vulnerable to so
called pathogenic germs seem to be able to navigate their way in and
out of a doctor's office or hospital without dying despite them
obviously being exposed to the pathogenic germs of the thousands of
other patients that had passed through previously.
Therefore the germ theory is a complete crock.
QED
So, when do I get my Nobel Prize?
I will deal with the rest later. For now I will just ask why would you
provide me with a bunch of references that only ever say: "Perhaps"
and "maybe" and "probably" rather than "we observed this happen"?
On Mar 14, 12:45 pm, Mike Mayfield <dutchro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *But neither of your responses have provided the basis to explain how it
> > could be that say the HI or varicella or Epstein Barr viruses can stay
> > 'dormant' in our bodies.*
>
> Google "virus latency". I'll help:
>
> http://virology-online.com/general/latent_virus_infections.htmhttp://www.virology.ws/2009/04/03/how-herpes-simplex-virus-exits-late...
> Google "virus latency". I'll help:
>
> *How do researchers know the difference between dormant viruses and dead
>
> > ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear
> > the same. I suppose it could be apparent in their structure*
> > ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear
>
> Correct.
>
> > * (although I am not confident that researchers genuinely understand the
> > structures well enough to make such a claim)*
>
> Your level of confidence is not really relevant to where the current
> scientific understanding is *actually* at. Long after Magellan's expedition
> Your level of confidence is not really relevant to where the current
> circumnavigated the world in the early 1500s there were still people who
> feared falling off the edge of the earth if they travelled too far across
> the sea.
>
> > * but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was Ashley's
> feared falling off the edge of the earth if they travelled too far across
> the sea.
>
> > implication as to how a virus could be 'killed' although it isn't clear to
> > me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become
> > 'renatured' in the right environment (which would *
> > me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become
>
> *presumably mean the human body). *
>
>
>
> Google "viral inactivation methods"
>
> If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more then what test could
>
> > have possibly shown that they were still able to replicate (at will
> > presumably)?
>
> I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still
> "alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you need a
> test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? And no it doesn't really
> do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is normally in
> the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV).
>
> > And if they did have this test (which told us when and how viral particles
> > would multiply and become pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they
> > could predict almost exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
>
> Even if they *did* have a test to show exactly *when* dormant viral
>
>
> Google "viral inactivation methods"
>
> If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more then what test could
>
> > have possibly shown that they were still able to replicate (at will
> > presumably)?
>
> I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still
> "alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you need a
> test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? And no it doesn't really
> do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is normally in
> the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV).
>
> > And if they did have this test (which told us when and how viral particles
> > would multiply and become pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they
> > could predict almost exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
>
> particles would multiply (which they don't), you couldn't predict when a
> patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the
> infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck these
> days you can't even predict *if* a patient will die from HIV infection,
> patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the
> infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck these
Mike Mayfield
Mar 14, 2012, 4:02:17 AM3/14/12
to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
Doctors don't have the lifespan of a World War One pilot. Indeed, even
those people who you would expect to be the most vulnerable to so
called pathogenic germs seem to be able to navigate their way in and
out of a doctor's office or hospital without dying despite them
obviously being exposed to the pathogenic germs of the thousands of
other patients that had passed through previously.
Therefore the germ theory is a complete crock.
Perhaps not all exposures to pathogens are fatal?
punter
Mar 14, 2012, 9:33:25 PM3/14/12
to Vaccination-Respectful Debate
<Perhaps not all exposures to pathogens are fatal?>
None even. Which is precisely why the germ theory is a crock.
So when do I get my Nobel?
>
> - Show quoted text -
punter
Mar 14, 2012, 9:38:15 PM3/14/12
to Vaccination-Respectful Debate
<http://virology-online.com/general/latent_virus_infections.htm
http://www.virology.ws/2009/04/03/how-herpes-simplex-virus-exits-late...
>
Thanks but the guys from the first reference clearly had no idea and
just made up a bunch of conjecture and the guys from the second
reference actually found some stuff but it wasn’t what they were
expecting and provided essentially no insight whatsoever into latency
of viruses.
Is it as good as the other two links? If so I’ll pass.
<*How do researchers know the difference between dormant viruses and
Correct. >
Really? So, without exception they see the structure in every single
one of the viral particles that they inject into people with vaccines
and ensure that not a single one of them has an intact structure?
That’s a hell of a lot of viral particles to look at – trillions in
fact. Must be a real bugger if someone interrupts while you’re sorting
through them and you have to start all over again.
Seems legit.
> * (although I am not confident that researchers genuinely understand the
> structures well enough to make such a claim)*
Maybe not, but given that I once rang up the senior lecturer in
immunology at my local university (a prestigious one at that) and
asked him how vaccines work his answer was that they didn’t know. I
have also seen plenty of similar statements from other immunologists
so I still don’t have confidence in the researchers’ knowledge in
either immunology an virology.
And by the way, that second link you provided had something that I
found quite interesting. The first poster asked the simple question
“what is the underling mechanism for viral latency?” a year ago.
Strangely, the author didn’t respond despite answering others. He
clearly has no idea. So, again, I will stick to my belief that
researchers are about in the same state of knowledge of virology and
immunology today as physicists were about their knowledge of the
movement of sub-atomic particles before Newton (yes I meant Newton not
Einstein) came along.
> * but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was Ashley's
already read). It doesn’t help. I can’t read anything specific that
says that every single viral vaccine is a denatured virus. Not saying
that assertion is wrong I just can’t find this specifically.
>I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still
"alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you
need a
test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? >
Ummm, so you know that it is dormant rather than dead.
>And no it doesn't really
do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is
normally in
the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV). <
Again this is just wild speculation. Can an HSV carrier be stressed or
get sunburnt and NOT get a cold sore. I reckon so.
And here’s another question for you. Why do people get shingles on one
side of the body (I ask this because some people I know say they only
ever get cold sores on one side of the mouth often in the same spot).
I understand that some people get it on their left, others the right,
but why does it focus on one side of the body? Does the varicella
virus (which supposedly causes it) know the difference between right
and left? Now that is smart.
<Even if they *did* have a test to show exactly *when* dormant viral
toxic than they used to be (or many more people are simply refusing to
take them). At any rate given that none of the AIDS drugs have ever
been through a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial (using
an actual placebo) nobody could ever possibly know.
PS did you know that liver disease is the number one cause of death
amongst AIDS patients in the US? I was about to jokingly write that it
must have been because they weren’t give the Hep B shot as a baby but
it turns out that modern medicine is more than capable of self-
parody.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15973779
You can only shake your head at the lunacy of it all. I guess it is
like when Rainier Wolfcastle was asked how he slept at night. "On top
of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies".
<When they say it has been tested extensively, I usually take that to
mean
that it has been tested extensively. I generally don't try to read
conspiracies or incompetence into it. >
Really? That’s funny, because in a previous post you said that in the
past these same government agencies and their brilliant researchers
got it horribly wrong. Do you honestly think that when the CDC and
other government bodies came out with their advice on vaccines in the
1950s and 60s they endeavoured to ensure that everyone knew that they
had absolutely no idea what they were talking about? When government
authorities actively FORCED people to take the small pox vaccine do
you think that when this was challenged in court the government
admitted that they had absolutely no idea at all whether or not the
vaccine did or could work or whether it was in any way shape or form
safe?
Seems legit.
Why is it that you bagging out the government actions from times past
is just a statement of fact but me pointing out the lunacy of their
current actions is a “conspiracy theory”? They’ve been wrong before
and they can be wrong now. They were very confident back then (or at
least told people they were) and they are very confident now (or at
least tell people they are). They refused to admit to any mistakes
that would have got them in trouble back then and there is no reason
to think they wouldn’t do the same thing now.
What’s the difference?
>That it's not obvious to you, does not mean it isn't obvious to many others<
True, but Ashley’s link to the denaturing of viruses is the closest
thing I have ever seen to an answer. But it is still a highly
problematic one because it isn’t clear how a) proteins would denature
just because they were outside the body at room temperature after a
time (his context was the Hep B virus dying after 7 days); b) whether
all viral vaccines are indeed denatured; c) how scientists could be
positive that every single viral particle was denatured; d) how they
could be sure that they wouldn’t eventually (or immediately)
‘renature’ once inside the body; and e) why would the body even mount
an immune response to such a particle anyway given that it can’t
actually do anything viral like and even if an immune response was
mounted why would it actually learn anything?
PS I have previously also cast doubt on the idea of ‘immune system
memory’ (there is practically no part of this paradigm I don’t
question) as it pertains to replicating ‘germs’ (I don’t doubt that
there is a kind of ‘memory’ response to poisons (eg antivenom)
though). But you are welcome to explain this with the assumption that
such a thing exists.
On Mar 14, 12:45 pm, Mike Mayfield <dutchro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *But neither of your responses have provided the basis to explain how it
> *How do researchers know the difference between dormant viruses and dead
>
> Correct.
>
> > * (although I am not confident that researchers genuinely understand the
> > structures well enough to make such a claim)*
http://www.virology.ws/2009/04/03/how-herpes-simplex-virus-exits-late...
>
Thanks but the guys from the first reference clearly had no idea and
just made up a bunch of conjecture and the guys from the second
reference actually found some stuff but it wasn’t what they were
expecting and provided essentially no insight whatsoever into latency
of viruses.
Is it as good as the other two links? If so I’ll pass.
<*How do researchers know the difference between dormant viruses and
dead
> ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear
> the same. I suppose it could be apparent in their structure*
> ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear
Correct. >
Really? So, without exception they see the structure in every single
one of the viral particles that they inject into people with vaccines
and ensure that not a single one of them has an intact structure?
That’s a hell of a lot of viral particles to look at – trillions in
fact. Must be a real bugger if someone interrupts while you’re sorting
through them and you have to start all over again.
Seems legit.
> * (although I am not confident that researchers genuinely understand the
> structures well enough to make such a claim)*
Your level of confidence is not really relevant to where the current
scientific understanding is *actually* at. >
Maybe not, but given that I once rang up the senior lecturer in
immunology at my local university (a prestigious one at that) and
asked him how vaccines work his answer was that they didn’t know. I
have also seen plenty of similar statements from other immunologists
so I still don’t have confidence in the researchers’ knowledge in
either immunology an virology.
And by the way, that second link you provided had something that I
found quite interesting. The first poster asked the simple question
“what is the underling mechanism for viral latency?” a year ago.
Strangely, the author didn’t respond despite answering others. He
clearly has no idea. So, again, I will stick to my belief that
researchers are about in the same state of knowledge of virology and
immunology today as physicists were about their knowledge of the
movement of sub-atomic particles before Newton (yes I meant Newton not
Einstein) came along.
> * but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was Ashley's
> implication as to how a virus could be 'killed' although it isn't clear to
> me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become
> me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become
> 'renatured' in the right environment (which would *
*presumably mean the human body). *
Google "viral inactivation methods" >
OK. The first link I got was a wiki for viral processing (which I have
*presumably mean the human body). *
Google "viral inactivation methods" >
already read). It doesn’t help. I can’t read anything specific that
says that every single viral vaccine is a denatured virus. Not saying
that assertion is wrong I just can’t find this specifically.
>I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still
"alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you
need a
test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? >
>And no it doesn't really
do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is
normally in
the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV). <
get sunburnt and NOT get a cold sore. I reckon so.
And here’s another question for you. Why do people get shingles on one
side of the body (I ask this because some people I know say they only
ever get cold sores on one side of the mouth often in the same spot).
I understand that some people get it on their left, others the right,
but why does it focus on one side of the body? Does the varicella
virus (which supposedly causes it) know the difference between right
and left? Now that is smart.
<Even if they *did* have a test to show exactly *when* dormant viral
particles would multiply (which they don't), you couldn't predict when
a
patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the
infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck
these
days you can't even predict *if* a patient will die from HIV
a
patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the
infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck
these
infection,
because the antiviral drugs are getting better. >
Or the people are dying from them more slowly because they are less
because the antiviral drugs are getting better. >
toxic than they used to be (or many more people are simply refusing to
take them). At any rate given that none of the AIDS drugs have ever
been through a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial (using
an actual placebo) nobody could ever possibly know.
PS did you know that liver disease is the number one cause of death
amongst AIDS patients in the US? I was about to jokingly write that it
must have been because they weren’t give the Hep B shot as a baby but
it turns out that modern medicine is more than capable of self-
parody.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15973779
You can only shake your head at the lunacy of it all. I guess it is
like when Rainier Wolfcastle was asked how he slept at night. "On top
of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies".
<When they say it has been tested extensively, I usually take that to
mean
that it has been tested extensively. I generally don't try to read
conspiracies or incompetence into it. >
past these same government agencies and their brilliant researchers
got it horribly wrong. Do you honestly think that when the CDC and
other government bodies came out with their advice on vaccines in the
1950s and 60s they endeavoured to ensure that everyone knew that they
had absolutely no idea what they were talking about? When government
authorities actively FORCED people to take the small pox vaccine do
you think that when this was challenged in court the government
admitted that they had absolutely no idea at all whether or not the
vaccine did or could work or whether it was in any way shape or form
safe?
Seems legit.
Why is it that you bagging out the government actions from times past
is just a statement of fact but me pointing out the lunacy of their
current actions is a “conspiracy theory”? They’ve been wrong before
and they can be wrong now. They were very confident back then (or at
least told people they were) and they are very confident now (or at
least tell people they are). They refused to admit to any mistakes
that would have got them in trouble back then and there is no reason
to think they wouldn’t do the same thing now.
What’s the difference?
>That it's not obvious to you, does not mean it isn't obvious to many others<
thing I have ever seen to an answer. But it is still a highly
problematic one because it isn’t clear how a) proteins would denature
just because they were outside the body at room temperature after a
time (his context was the Hep B virus dying after 7 days); b) whether
all viral vaccines are indeed denatured; c) how scientists could be
positive that every single viral particle was denatured; d) how they
could be sure that they wouldn’t eventually (or immediately)
‘renature’ once inside the body; and e) why would the body even mount
an immune response to such a particle anyway given that it can’t
actually do anything viral like and even if an immune response was
mounted why would it actually learn anything?
PS I have previously also cast doubt on the idea of ‘immune system
memory’ (there is practically no part of this paradigm I don’t
question) as it pertains to replicating ‘germs’ (I don’t doubt that
there is a kind of ‘memory’ response to poisons (eg antivenom)
though). But you are welcome to explain this with the assumption that
such a thing exists.
On Mar 14, 12:45 pm, Mike Mayfield <dutchro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *But neither of your responses have provided the basis to explain how it
> > could be that say the HI or varicella or Epstein Barr viruses can stay
> > 'dormant' in our bodies.*
>
> Google "virus latency". I'll help:
>
> http://virology-online.com/general/latent_virus_infections.htmhttp://www.virology.ws/2009/04/03/how-herpes-simplex-virus-exits-late...
> Google "virus latency". I'll help:
>
> *How do researchers know the difference between dormant viruses and dead
>
> > ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear
> > the same. I suppose it could be apparent in their structure*
> > ones? Presumably it can't be because of their behaviour which would appear
>
> Correct.
>
> > * (although I am not confident that researchers genuinely understand the
> > structures well enough to make such a claim)*
>
> Your level of confidence is not really relevant to where the current
> scientific understanding is *actually* at. Long after Magellan's expedition
> Your level of confidence is not really relevant to where the current
> circumnavigated the world in the early 1500s there were still people who
> feared falling off the edge of the earth if they travelled too far across
> the sea.
>
> > * but I have read that "denatured" proteins (this was Ashley's
> feared falling off the edge of the earth if they travelled too far across
> the sea.
>
> > implication as to how a virus could be 'killed' although it isn't clear to
> > me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become
> > me that all viruses in vaccines are inactivated this way) can become
> > 'renatured' in the right environment (which would *
>
> *presumably mean the human body). *
>
>
>
>
> *presumably mean the human body). *
>
>
>
> Google "viral inactivation methods"
>
> If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more then what test could
>
> > have possibly shown that they were still able to replicate (at will
> > presumably)?
>
> I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still
> "alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you need a
> test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? And no it doesn't really
> do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is normally in
> the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV).
>
> > And if they did have this test (which told us when and how viral particles
> > would multiply and become pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they
> > could predict almost exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
>
> Even if they *did* have a test to show exactly *when* dormant viral
>
> If the HI virus can lay dormant for 10 years or more then what test could
>
> > have possibly shown that they were still able to replicate (at will
> > presumably)?
>
> I don't understand. If it's dormant, then it's still "alive". If it's still
> "alive" then it can still replicate by definition. So why would you need a
> test to show a dormant virus can still replicate? And no it doesn't really
> do so "at will". It requires a little nudge or prompt. This is normally in
> the form of stress (eg, a cold or sunburn in the case of HSV).
>
> > And if they did have this test (which told us when and how viral particles
> > would multiply and become pathogenic) then wouldn't this imply that they
> > could predict almost exactly when HIV positive patients would die?
>
> particles would multiply (which they don't), you couldn't predict when a
> patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the
> infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck these
> days you can't even predict *if* a patient will die from HIV infection,
> patient will die. That would depend on how well their body fights the
> infection, what antiviral drugs they were taking, and so on. Heck these
Mike Mayfield
Mar 15, 2012, 8:15:28 AM3/15/12
to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
And on that note, I think we'll terminate this exchange. I mean, if you're not actually going to put any effort into actually comprehending the points I'm making, then there's really nothing to be gained by going any further, right? We're back to the same old Tristan who manifests himself regularly on other similar topics, aren't we?
I mean, no pathogens can be fatal. Really? REALLY? Come on Tristan, when you stoop to that level of utter nonsense there is really no point in continuing the "conversation" at all.
That you actually appear to be unwilling to be educated (ie, you won't even stump up the cash to buy a entire book written on a topic which you admit puzzles you) is a great pity. I actually did exactly this on a physics-related topic which I've had an amateur interest in for quite a while and was highly impressed by the actual level of knowledge out there, including reading about the actual experimental and observational results which you can't get from a Wikipedia entry. But you refuse. Why? Are you scared of what you might learn and that it might contradict your previous assumptions (of which you make many)?
punter
Mar 15, 2012, 7:00:11 PM3/15/12
to Vaccination-Respectful Debate
<That you actually appear to be unwilling to be educated (ie, you
won't even
stump up the cash to buy a entire book written on a topic which you
admit
puzzles you) is a great pity.>
If you want to know more about my views on disease then can you send
won't even
stump up the cash to buy a entire book written on a topic which you
admit
puzzles you) is a great pity.>
me a cheque for 1000 dollars please?
Trust me when I say that it is worth it for you to educate yourself,
and if you throw in another 500 I will teach you about true (Austrian)
economics. For another 500 I will explain why we will never run out of
oil. Now that's what I call value. I expect the cheque in the next
week otherwise I will have to conclude that you are simply "unwilling
to be uneducated".
>We're back to the same old Tristan who manifests himself regularly
on other similar topics, aren't we?<
viruses because you genuinely thought you could answer this one
(Ashley even - rather transparently - said that we should be bound to
extrapolate that you therefore actually have an answer to all my
points (but you're just being coy)), but, as I showed, even it fell
very short. Now of course that you are left sans answers again you are
back to having a sook about the big bad punter being a big meanie.
It's completely transparent.
On Mar 15, 11:15 pm, Mike Mayfield <dutchro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And on that note, I think we'll terminate this exchange. I mean, if you're
> not actually going to put any effort into actually comprehending the points
> I'm making, then there's really nothing to be gained by going any further,
> right? We're back to the same old Tristan who manifests himself regularly
> on other similar topics, aren't we?
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages