The huge amounts of advice spewed out of this group is mind boggling.
Not only is most of it in error, taught in colleges that accept bribe
money from industry, but it is down right dangerous. Case in point, the
virus.
If a virus is dead, as it is and has no life form and never did, how
does it think and know how to travel in the human body. Its makeup of
dead genetic material is leftover from the destruction process of the
lysosomes. The answer is, it is "debris" in the system waiting for
expulsion or taken in as food (phagocytosis) by the cell. The body
knows what it is doing and that is more than I can say for many on this
site, especially the Md.’s and Phd.’s and the rest of the degrees.
Funny, my thermometer has over a hundred degrees.
I posted this some time ago but obvious and intentional apathy for fact
and study runs amok — money talks. Read the following and enjoy it and
if you don’t agree — so what! Get a good physiology ( Guyton has a
few) and chemistry book and study, learn and think for yourself.
I can hardly wait to see the response I get from this. Voodooism will
erupt its head giving life to the dead. So all you lovers of the
useless field of virology sharpen your pencils. But remember, I did not
spend my life looking for a needle in a haystack that wasn’t
there!!!!!
The Supposed Nature of Viruses:
According to the popular portrayal of the virus, it is a form of life
that parasitizes upon all forms of life including animal, plant and
saprophytic (fungi and bacteria).
FACT: What are called viruses are entirely of genetic material and have
no characteristics of life other than being of organic material and
construction identical to that of the genomes contained within cellular
mitochondria. In short, what are called viruses are always dead and
incapable of any acts whatsoever. Dead matter may be acted upon but
never acts of itself. It is voodooistic to ascribe any activity of any
kind to totally dead inanimate matter.
According to the Time article, a virus is described as a bizarre
creature seemingly designed to inflict woe on humans, animals and
plants. Diseases are the result of the malevolent acts of viruses, and
the intent of the article is to acquaint us with the tiny creature that
causes them.
FACTS: Viral diseases, so-called, are always manifestations of body
actions undertaken to detoxify and repair itself. A virus is not a
creature, it is a dead bit of genetic material partially or wholly
enclosed in a capsid or a double protein sheath. That this bit of dead
material should have actions of any kind is roughly akin to attributing
actions to the decapitated head of a dead person.
Only living organisms are capable of acting and reproducing; all units
of life have a directing or control mechanism called a head, a nucleus
or a genome; and, there is never a head, nucleus or genome without an
organism to direct. This indicates the absurdity of this devilish
imposition called virus.
Hank see —- FREE —- http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
Hank wrote:
[edit]
> Only living organisms are capable of acting and reproducing; all units
> of life have a directing or control mechanism called a head, a nucleus
> or a genome; and, there is never a head, nucleus or genome without an
> organism to direct. This indicates the absurdity of this devilish
> imposition called virus.
> Hank see —- FREE —- http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
"Life is a membrane that reproduces."
Pandoc
A complete idiot produces webpages freely, has no control mechanism, and
usually hides its head well from sunshine and the light of
understanding.
It is truly a pity that its genome is severely redundant and may be
passed
on to offspring. Luckily the mating process can be quite selective and
usually differentiates the complete bafoon from the simply common-sense-
challenged.
Steven B. Harris wrote:
[edit]
> I dunno. I’ve known many a complete buffoon who was married with
> children. Bet you have also.
> Steve Harris, M.D.
Usually they are married to saints and the genes get watered down… its
the homotypic couple that’s scary. I think Hank might be able to
reproduce asexually. He’s so full of life.
"Life is a membrane that reproduces."
Pandoc
In <326FDDE7.4…@postoffice.ptd.net> Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net>
writes:
>I posted this some time ago but obvious and intentional apathy for
fact and study runs amok — money talks. Read the following and enjoy
it and if you don’t agree — so what! Get a good physiology ( Guyton
has a few) and chemistry book and study, learn and think for
yourself.<<
The last time you posted your stupid drivel, I quoted from one of
the texts you ask us to read and study:
"Many of us think of the cell as the lowest level of life. However,
the cell is a very complicated organism, which required many hundreds
of million years to develop after the earliest from of life, an
organism similar to the present day _virus_, first appeared on the
earth."
— Guyton, Textbook of Physiology, Eighth Edition (1991).
If you had just recommended to us a book you yourself hadn’t read,
we’d have to think you merely stupid. But since I have already pointed
out to you that Guyton doesn’t share your views, and since you are over
here using the same argument again, like a Creationist in a different
debate, I have to imagine that you are worse than stupid. You are
dishonest.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>I can hardly wait to see the response I get from this. Voodooism will
>erupt its head giving life to the dead. So all you lovers of the
>useless field of virology sharpen your pencils. But remember, I did
not
>spend my life looking for a needle in a haystack that wasn’t
>there!!!!!
>The Supposed Nature of Viruses:
>According to the popular portrayal of the virus, it is a form of life
>that parasitizes upon all forms of life including animal, plant and
>saprophytic (fungi and bacteria).
>FACT: What are called viruses are entirely of genetic material and
have
>no characteristics of life other than being of organic material and
>construction identical to that of the genomes contained within
cellular
>mitochondria.
If you believe this, then YOUR brain is DOA.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>If a virus is dead, as it is and has no life form and never did, how
>does it think and know how to travel in the human body. Its makeup of
>dead genetic material is leftover from the destruction process of the
>lysosomes. The answer is, it is "debris" in the system waiting for
>expulsion or taken in as food (phagocytosis) by the cell.
[snip!]
You are correct, of course, if that is the side of the ‘debate’ you
take- but what is life? What constitutes the minimum requirements
for life? Is it simply the presence of DNA/RNA or is protein and fat
(membrane) required? That, I believe, is a philosophical question that
none of us here can accurately defend one way or another.
At one time, viruses did not ‘qualify’ as having the minimum
requirements to be called ‘life’- so we then change the ‘definition’
to include virus. Then along comes the concept of prions- again
screwing up the definitions…
So…think what you want, it doesn’t matter to me whether you think a
virus is ‘alive’ or dead. The fact remains that a particle, named a
virus in this case, causes disease- whether it ‘thinks’ or ‘knows’ is
irrelevant. It ‘acts’ in some mechanism.
-Mark
In <32712EC7.6…@ix.netcom.com> "Charles P. McCarthy"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<pan…@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Hank wrote:
>[edit]
>> Only living organisms are capable of acting and reproducing; all
units
>> of life have a directing or control mechanism called a head, a
nucleus
>> or a genome; and, there is never a head, nucleus or genome without
an
>> organism to direct. This indicates the absurdity of this devilish
>> imposition called virus.
>> Hank see —- FREE —- http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
>"Life is a membrane that reproduces."
> Pandoc
>A complete idiot produces webpages freely, has no control mechanism,
and
>usually hides its head well from sunshine and the light of
>understanding.
>It is truly a pity that its genome is severely redundant and may be
>passed
>on to offspring. Luckily the mating process can be quite selective
and
>usually differentiates the complete bafoon from the simply
common-sense-
>challenged.
I dunno. I’ve known many a complete buffoon who was married with
children. Bet you have also.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Mark Haythorn wrote:
[edit]
> What constitutes the minimum requirements
> for life? Is it simply the presence of DNA/RNA or is protein and fat
> (membrane) required? That, I believe, is a philosophical question that
> none of us here can accurately defend one way or another.
I have to disagree with you here, Mark. Physical life is readily
defined and understood in a biological sense.
Life is a membrane that reproduces. Prions are simple unit
membranes.
A membrane, membrana, or membrum, which is to say a thin
sheet or layer of pliable tissue, a skin, a limb, a crus, a member
if you will, functions by serving as a septum. A septum being
nothing less than that which delineates and demarcates a septal
area, which is essentially any circumscribed surface or space.
Circumscription, like property rights, is simply the state of being
bounded by a line. I don’t want to get too ethereal, especially in
this forum, however, even molecules have rights, and an axis in
space somewhere.
Any questions regarding sexual vs asexual reproduction
probably are best answered by looking for penetration. When
HIV DNA flirts with a phagocyte and entices it to allow penetration
via endocytosis without the use of a condom, it doesn’t take nine
months for the poor, promiscuous macrophage to begin birthing a
healthy houseful of infectious viral rugrats. Even the cytosol is
full of gel forms filled with pores, etc. You have to watch out
whose membranes you’re crossing.
Membranes crossing membranes? Pretty sexy.
Sounds like a Simon and Garfunkel tune like
"Bridge Over Troubled Waters".
Good Luck,
Charlie
Charles P. McCarthy, Clinical Specialist
Healthcare Consulting and
Medical Research
Professor Emeritus of Pantherapeuticological Medicine
Carmichael, CA USA
*************************************************************
********* NON LICET SUI COMMODA CAUSA NOCERE ALTERI *********
*************************************************************
In <554tih$…@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> mhayt…@ix.netcom.com (Mark
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Haythorn) writes:
>Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
>>If a virus is dead, as it is and has no life form and never did, how
>>does it think and know how to travel in the human body. Its makeup
of
>>dead genetic material is leftover from the destruction process of the
>>lysosomes. The answer is, it is "debris" in the system waiting for
>>expulsion or taken in as food (phagocytosis) by the cell.
>[snip!]
>You are correct, of course, if that is the side of the ‘debate’ you
>take- but what is life? What constitutes the minimum requirements
>for life? Is it simply the presence of DNA/RNA or is protein and fat
>(membrane) required? That, I believe, is a philosophical question that
>none of us here can accurately defend one way or another.
>At one time, viruses did not ‘qualify’ as having the minimum
>requirements to be called ‘life’- so we then change the ‘definition’
>to include virus. Then along comes the concept of prions- again
>screwing up the definitions…
>So…think what you want, it doesn’t matter to me whether you think a
>virus is ‘alive’ or dead. The fact remains that a particle, named a
>virus in this case, causes disease- whether it ‘thinks’ or ‘knows’ is
>irrelevant. It ‘acts’ in some mechanism.
>-Mark
Indeed. Life is an example of an "emergent property" which arises
from complexity. It doesn’t arive all-at-once, but rather gradually,
like the dawn, so that it’s pretty much impossible to say at what point
a complicated system becomes alive (and, at the other end, when it
becomes dead!).
I mean, at what point does water become "wet"? One molecule of water
is not "wet," nor is a collection of two. Or three. But go on like
this, and eventually you get a collection large enough that anybody
will agree that it’s "wet." Does that mean that somewhere in there a
"wetness soul" entered into the collection, confering this extra
property? Nope. But some people (those with binary minds) seem to
think this way, and seem to require that properties such as life and
humanity be associated with some kind of binary Aristotelian
transformation.
Steve Harris, M.D.
sbhar…@ix.netcom.com(Steven "Steven B. Harris" writes:
> [ To Hank:]
> "Many of us think of the cell as the lowest level of life. However,
> the cell is a very complicated organism, which required many hundreds
> of million years to develop after the earliest from of life, an
> organism similar to the present day _virus_, first appeared on the
> earth."
> — Guyton, Textbook of Physiology, Eighth Edition (1991).
> If you had just recommended to us a book you yourself hadn’t read,
> we’d have to think you merely stupid. But since I have already pointed
> out to you that Guyton doesn’t share your views, and since you are over
> here using the same argument again, like a Creationist in a different
> debate, I have to imagine that you are worse than stupid. You are
> dishonest.
So in your mind the phrases "similar to" and "identical to" are
the same. If so, then you are worse than dishonest. You are stupid.
John
—
"There is this terrible fear throughout the field that it will be
discovered we have been walking down the wrong route all these years
and advising people to do things which will turn out to be the wrong
things. I think about quitting all the time."
UK "Aids" industry worker’s letter to Neville Hodgkinson,
author of _AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science_
sbhar…@ix.netcom.com(Steven "Steven B. Harris" writes:
> > Luckily the mating process can be quite selective and
> > usually differentiates the complete bafoon from the simply
> > common-sense-challenged.
> I dunno. I’ve known many a complete buffoon who was married with
> children. Bet you have also.
Panflush is talking about Bafoons, not buffoons. Bafoons are
practitioners of Pantherapeuticabuymysweetsugerstuffalogical
medicine.
As he says, the Bafoon has difficulty mating. Also eating,
walking upright and, as we have noticed here, thinking.
John
himself wrote:
[edit]
> As he says, the Bafoon has difficulty mating. Also eating,
> walking upright and, as we have noticed here, thinking.
> John
While you are practicing your spelling here’s a little food
for thought-
Heath SL; Tew JG; Tew JG; Szakal AK; Burton GF
Follicular dendritic cells and human immunodeficiency virus
infectivity [see comments]
Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond 23298-0678, USA.
Nature. 1995 Oct 26;377(6551):740-4.
Unique Identifier: AIDSLINE MED/96042553
Comment in: Nature 1995 Oct 26;377(6551):680-1
Abstract:
Large amounts of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) localize on
follicular dendritic cells (FDC) in the follicles of secondary
lymphoid tissues following viral infection. During clinical
latency, active viral infection occurs primarily at these sites.
As HIV on FDC is in the form of immune complexes, some of which
may be formed with neutralizing antibody, we investigated whether
HIV on FDC is infectious. We report here that HIV on FDC is
highly infectious. Furthermore, FDC can convert neutralized HIV
into an infectious form even in the presence of a vast excess of
neutralizing antibody. Thus FDC may provide a mechanism whereby
HIV infection can continue in the presence of neutralizing
antibody.
Kornbluth RS; Richman DD
HIV-1 DNA survives apoptosis in infected T cells and is
taken up by phagocytosing macrophages with the production
of new infectious virus.
Univ. Calif. San Diego, CA.
Natl Conf Hum Retroviruses Relat Infect (1st). 1993 Dec 12-16;:165.
Abstract:
CEM T cells infected with the lymphotropic strain HIV-LAI (LAI)
undergo apoptotic cell death (J. Clin. Invest. 87:1710, 1991).
This process generates cellular debris containing degraded
cellular DNA but intact HIV DNA. Scavenging macrophages avidly
take up this debris and we have proposed that they become
infected by the viral DNA it contains. To test this hypothesis,
we fed apoptotic debris containing radiolabelled DNA to
macrophages and analyzed the DNA that survived intracellular
digestion. Whereas almost all of the input DNA apoptotic ladder
was destroyed inside of the macrophages, a discrete high m.w.
form of radiolabelled DNA remained. This suggests that the DNA in
the infected apoptotic debris may follow an intracellular pathway
which evades hydrolysis. The macrophages that take up this debris
proceed to release infectious virions. Whereas AZT and soluble
CD4 effectively blocked infection by HIV-1 BaL virions in
macrophages, these agents were at best only partly effective in
macrophages infected with debris containing LAI DNA. Conversely,
rabbit polyclonal antibody produced against uninfected CEM cells
had little effect on BaL infection but completely prevented
infection by HIV- infected CEM debris. Pretreatment of
macrophages with TNF- alpha had no effect on BaL replication but
markedly enhanced the production of p24 in debris infected
cultures (5-20X). These data suggest a distinct cell biology of a
non-virion, DNA-mediated pathway for the infection of macrophages
by apoptotic debris derived from HIV-1-infected cells.
"Life is a membrane that reproduces."
Pandoc
In <846676891…@blackdog.demon.co.uk> j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk
(himself) writes:
>sbhar…@ix.netcom.com(Steven "Steven B. Harris" writes:
>> [ To Hank:]
>> "Many of us think of the cell as the lowest level of life.
However, the cell is a very complicated organism, which required many
hundreds of million years to develop after the earliest from of life,
an organism similar to the present day _virus_, first appeared on the
earth."
— Guyton, Textbook of Physiology, Eighth Edition(1991).
>> If you had just recommended to us a book you yourself hadn’t
read, we’d have to think you merely stupid. But since I have already
pointed out to you that Guyton doesn’t share your views, and since you
are over here using the same argument again, like a Creationist in a
different debate, I have to imagine that you are worse than stupid.
You are dishonest.
>So in your mind the phrases "similar to" and "identical to" are
>the same. If so, then you are worse than dishonest. You are stupid.
> John
Well, I will admit that I have the advantage of having the full
textbook, whereas you have only a quoted paragraph, and Hank seems
never to have read anything at all. Silly me for imagining you capable
or an inference. Guyton goes on to say in the next paragraph (one I
also quoted more than a year ago to Hank):
"The essential life-giving constituent of the very small virus is a
nucleic acid embedded in a coat of protein. This nucleic acid is
composed of the same basic constituents (DNA and RNA) as found in
mammalian cells, and it is capable of reproducing itself if appropriate
conditions are available. Thus, the virus is capable of propagating its
lineage from generation to generation and, therefore, is a living
structure in the same way that the cell and the human being are living
structures."
Now, one can agree or disagree with Guyton, but there’s no doubt at
all what his opinion in this matter is. You want to argue about it
some more, and make an even bigger fool of yourself?
Steve Harris, M.D.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Mark Haythorn wrote:
> Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net> wrote:
> >If a virus is dead, as it is and has no life form and never did, how
> >does it think and know how to travel in the human body. Its makeup of
> >dead genetic material is leftover from the destruction process of the
> >lysosomes. The answer is, it is "debris" in the system waiting for
> >expulsion or taken in as food (phagocytosis) by the cell.
> [snip!]
> You are correct, of course, if that is the side of the ‘debate’ you
> take- but what is life? What constitutes the minimum requirements
> for life? Is it simply the presence of DNA/RNA or is protein and fat
> (membrane) required? That, I believe, is a philosophical question that
> none of us here can accurately defend one way or another.
> At one time, viruses did not ‘qualify’ as having the minimum
> requirements to be called ‘life’- so we then change the ‘definition’
> to include virus. Then along comes the concept of prions- again
> screwing up the definitions…
> So…think what you want, it doesn’t matter to me whether you think a
> virus is ‘alive’ or dead. The fact remains that a particle, named a
> virus in this case, causes disease- whether it ‘thinks’ or ‘knows’ is
> irrelevant. It ‘acts’ in some mechanism.
> -Mark
A virus does not cause disease/ disease is initiated by the body to
clean itself, excluding chronic disease like ankylosis.
So-called viruses are nothing more than the genetic debris from cells
(we lose about 300 billion a day, more if we’re toxic) — these genetic
debris, technically a genome is called a virus.
"Viruses" stem from the few quadrillion of mitochondria that die daily.
(Each cell, excepting blood cells, has up to 30,000 or more of these
organelles or mitochondria each of which have a genome. A genome is to
a mitochondrion roughly what a head is to the body). As genomes are
dead organic material having no attributes of life (and in no sense is a
microbe or organism) they can cause nothing despite the medical myths to
the contrary.
So it gets back to this: At worst what are called microbes are
irrelevant. Health is always produced by healthful living and diseases
are the invariable result when we live unhealthfully. So the worst
thing about fearing microbes and disease is the fear itself.
—
Hank – see http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
"The wise man enjoys what he has, the fool
is always in search for more."
sbhar…@ix.netcom.com(Steven "Steven B. Harris" writes:
> [..]
> Now, one can agree or disagree with Guyton, but there’s no doubt at
> all what his opinion in this matter is.
So what? What matters is not that there is a difference of views on
the subject, but that the quote you gave failed to make the case you
claimed for it. Other quotes might better reflect that author’s views,
but still don’t contradict Hank. In fact, it now seems more likely
that he is right, as the case made for "living" viruses is flimsier
than expected.
> You want to argue about it some more, and make an even bigger fool
> of yourself?
I never challenge people in the area of their greatest expertise.
John
—
"To me, the presently available evidence does not prove even that
it is an endogenous retrovirus, because what we see, the phenomena
collectively known as HIV, are non-specific. RT is non-specific;
virus-like particles are non-specific; the antigen-antibody reactions
are non-specific; PCR is non-specific. You can’t even say you have
a retrovirus there."
Eleni Eleopulos, Dept. of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital
In article <327D5CA5….@postoffice.ptd.net>
Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net> writes:
>A virus according to Guyton is a minute bit of genetic material about a
>billionth the size of a cell (may vary depending on cell.)
>[...]
HIV is about 1/100 the diameter of a lymphocyte[1]. It is not "a billionth"
the size of a lymphocyte. Try reading something other than T.C. Fry, Hank.
REFERENCE:
1. Harris, S.B., 1995. "The AIDS Heresies." Skeptic, Vol. 3, No. 2:63.
james m. scutero, original proponent of misc.health.aids
the newsgroup of acquired immune deficiency syndromes
o_) *
” _/\
/(
misc.health.aids homepage`- http://www.panix.com/~jscutero
surfin’ with aids. * (hot ascii surfer)
A virus according to Guyton is a minute bit of genetic material about a
billionth the size of a cell (may vary depending on cell.) A virus is
described as a genome surrounded by a capsid that is usually a double
lipid/protein sheath. That seems to describe perfectly the genomes of
the body’s mitochondria too.
But wait King of Faulty Thought, when the brain is exercised to think
and search, you will also find that your (space beings) virus have these
unlifelike characteristics: No metabolism, cannot process foods and
have no energy formation. (they are only a template or pattern), no
faculties for action of any kind, no nervous system, no sensing or
decision-making faculties, much less movement and "invasion."
They cannot replicate themselves, depending wholly upon "obligate
reproduction." that is reproduction by an alien organism, something
unheard of in all biology.
You may have an excellent book in physiology but you lack the mental
capabilities to understand what you read. That makes you a dangerous
fool. But maybe your problem is the same as Dr. Harris — a brain made
of urine-mucoid.
Hank — http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
James Scutero wrote:
> In article <327D5CA5….@postoffice.ptd.net>
> Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net> writes:
> >A virus according to Guyton is a minute bit of genetic material about a
> >billionth the size of a cell (may vary depending on cell.)
> >[...]
> HIV is about 1/100 the diameter of a lymphocyte[1]. It is not "a billionth"
> the size of a lymphocyte. Try reading something other than T.C. Fry, Hank.
> REFERENCE:
> 1. Harris, S.B., 1995. "The AIDS Heresies." Skeptic, Vol. 3, No. 2:63.
> james m. scutero, original proponent of misc.health.aids
> the newsgroup of acquired immune deficiency syndromes
> o_) *
> ” _/\
> /(
> misc.health.aids homepage`- http://www.panix.com/~jscutero
> surfin’ with aids. * (hot ascii surfer)
==========================================================
"may vary depending upon cell." Try reading what’s there!
—
Hank – see http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
"The wise man enjoys what he has, the fool
is always in search for more."
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
James Scutero wrote:
> In article <327D5CA5….@postoffice.ptd.net>
> Hank <hak…@postoffice.ptd.net> writes:
> >A virus according to Guyton is a minute bit of genetic material about a
> >billionth the size of a cell (may vary depending on cell.)
> >[...]
> HIV is about 1/100 the diameter of a lymphocyte[1]. It is not "a billionth"
> the size of a lymphocyte. Try reading something other than T.C. Fry, Hank.
> REFERENCE:
> 1. Harris, S.B., 1995. "The AIDS Heresies." Skeptic, Vol. 3, No. 2:63.
> james m. scutero, original proponent of misc.health.aids
> the newsgroup of acquired immune deficiency syndromes
> o_) *
> ” _/\
> /(
> misc.health.aids homepage`- http://www.panix.com/~jscutero
> surfin’ with aids. * (hot ascii surfer)
You may also look into Dorland’s, under virus, for a sizing of the
virus.
—
Hank – see http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/1101
"The wise man enjoys what he has, the fool
is always in search for more."