Home > Resources, Diet, Testimonials, Logs > Ray Peat Resources & Quotes > Email Advice > RP Email Advice Comment: Viruses

RP Email Advice Comment: Viruses

  1. My Question:
    Hey Ray!
    I read a book called Fear of The Invisible by Jeanine Roberts which is an incredible detailed account of the history of Virology, and presents the hypothesis that Virus' are completely misunderstood. The author reports the political history of Virology which consisted of a bunch of childlike scientists trying desperately to make a contribution to science to satisfy their egos.

    If she's correct, and it seems very likely based on what I've read, viruses are solvents, produced BY the cells (when they have been exposed to toxic chemicals) as a kind of self-cleaning/detoxification mechanism.

    If the invisible virus is the cause of massive deaths in the case of, for example, polio, then the chemical-producing companies instantly become free of all liability.

    “When I dug back further, to the origins of virology and the great hunt for the poliovirus, I found the story was scandalously much the same. Powerful evidence was presented to Congress linking the summer polio epidemics to summer-used heavy metal pesticides. These scientists suggested remedies, reported curing polio – and were ignored. Instead parents were told to be scared of a yet undiscovered virus.” – Janine Roberts

    Additionally, Pasteur appears to be a complete fraud (Pasteur vs. Bechamp), so the invention of viruses could in theory also have been to get people to accept toxic vaccine injections.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
    Best regards,

    Ray's Reply:

  2. Well, if viruses are internal (endo) toxins produced by the cells when under stress then viruses should have a lot in common with endotoxin produced by bacteria in the gut. Hhhm, how logical and yet imperceptible to the common white-coat.
    Virulence factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Interferon Appearance Stimulated by Endotoxin, Bacteria, or Viruses in Mice Pre-Treated with Escherichia coli Endotoxin or Infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis
  3. Ray Peat has already stated this when talking about hepatitis C or HIV, I don't remember if on KMUD radio or on his website.
  4. I think he said that estrogen, endotoxin, radiation, stress, adrenaline, FFA, exotoxins, etc all activates retroviruses like HIV. But I am wondering if endotoxin can actually behave like a virus itself - i.e. change DNA and such. I am about to post a study on the long term epigenetic effects of endotoxin and they look remarkably similar to viruses.
  5. Okay. So then I'm confused about what is happening when folks claim there is a "stomach virus" going on... Or the flu is passed? So some viruses are contagions, but others are created by the cell?
  6. What about phages?
  7. This is an interesting discussion. I think a case could be made for "invisible" viruses like HIV, but what about visible ones like HPV that causes warts. Or herpes. I know NO exacerbates these issues, but can we really say it is entirely caused by them? I dunno...
  8. Very few of these stomach bug events have actually been tied to a virus. Whenever someone has the "flu" or a stomach bug it is automatically assumed that it is an exogenous virus causing this. But in reality, both types of conditions can be easily caused by endotoxin. Both the fever from the regular "flu" and nausea/vomiting from the stomach "bug" are well known symptoms of NO/serotonin elevations caused by endotoxin. I am not saying the viral infections do not exist. But I have seen first hand in actual clinical setting (ER) how most people with these symptoms automatically get labelled "viral" and given Tamiflu without any supporting evidence for presence of a virus. Only if internal bleeding is suspected then doctors do some blood tests looking for specific viruses since bleeding is one of the symptoms of viral infection. It's not just Ebola that causes organ bleeding, all viruses can cause it.
    Next time you or someone you know gets the "flu", have them try a hefty dose of charcoal. If the symptoms subside within a few hours then it is not a virus.
  9. So, when the Polio Vaccine was contaminated with SV40 "virus", what was it actually contaminated with? A piece of endotoxin? And what is actually in Vaccines that is supposed to be the inactive virus. Was small-pox a "virus"? Or is "endotoxin" just another name for "virus"? What is it that a picture of a "virus" is actually showing?
  10. That is a great question. All I know is that both endotoxin and viruses seem to exert their effects through the so-called TLR4 receptor, and as far as that "receptor" is concerned, endotoxin, viruses, PUFA, opioids, adrenaline, etc are all the same things.
    TLR4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I think this deserves a separate post, which I will try to do this weekend.
    It reminds me of Ray's article of the estrogen "receptor" which can be activated in the absense of estrogen by adrenaline, PUFA, cortisol, retroviruses, NO, etc. It is starting to look like we need to classify substances based on their effects more than based on their physical characteristic. I do think that viruses exist but the question is what is the relevance of talking about viruses and endotoxin as different entities if they produce largely the same effects on organisms?
  11. I am not sure what you're trying to say, prove or disprove here, Flatearth.
    This does not deny the existence of viruses as possible exogenous infective agents. The fact that viral sequences generally share a lot similarity should tell enough.
  12. I think if an organism under a certain stress makes the switch and starts making some virus, another organism under a similar stress would make a switch because of being exposed to that virus from outside, so things would go in reverse. Like when you cool water below 0°C but it needs a little bump to start freezing.
  13. So, maybe viruses are the cross-organismic messaging mechanism that an organism is under stress and this can cause other organisms to be stressed as well by "reading" that virus and thus knowing what the stress was all about? Almost like the stressed cell emitting signals telling other cells about its misfortune and then the other cells around it try to help and if there is quorum that the stress is over then the stress is over.
  14. Well yea, plants do that too. But it could also be just like some kind of airborne tumor basically. Like a prion disease or like a software bug that endangers many machines from opportunistic entities.
  15. The implications of this are staggering, and it helps me realize why Ray hasn't said much in the way of viruses (at least in my research of his work thus far).
    If viruses are produced by cells inside the body, then viruses are not transmittable and the fear we're programmed to have about ebola, h1n1, swine flu, etc are all a complete hoax.

    Mold Toxins Tied to AIDS Epidemic:

    Immunological Stressor Agents are the Real Cause of AIDS
  16. You don't think they multiply?
  17. I'm having real trouble imagining how norovirus and chicken pox could be something other than infectious.

    Virus replicate by getting cells to (re)produce them.
    People are usually more susceptible to viral infection when under stress - ie their cells are likely to (re)produce more virus.
    I don't see how this would be inconsistent with either the standard view or the phrase from Peat above?

  18. Nope. You should be very fearful of Ebola. Unless you like blood to come out of your bum, be fearful!

    Perhaps going to the extreme of saying viruses are a hoax is a bit much. I think you can't throw the baby out with the bath water here. It seems more plausible that viruses can go both ways--from the outside and/or inside.
  19. This does not follow. Standard theory is that viruses are produced by cells inside the body. This does not stop them being infections and transmissible.

    Parents didn't invent chicken pox parties for nothing.

    Maybe there's some hypothetical possibility of some people being able to be so unstressed that they can resist all viral infections, but I'm not planning on being a guinea pig for those experiments.
  20. In other words, being around sick/stressed people is technically contagious. Even if their disease is not caused by virus/bacteria.
  21. Oh yeah I've definitely experienced that! All bodies speak the same language... and cells also affect one another like this.
  22. Hey,how did get through to RP..TANKS
  23. Haidut, I too think that is true. Stress has even been proven to be directly contagious. More hypothetically, although there seems to be some evidence in case of severe dysfunction, people with malfunction, even when not directly being caused viruses, bacteria or w/e, carry a cloud of micro-organisms with likely opportunistics among them and if you're vulnerable ... So once again my appreciation for all your effort, it certainly benefits the whole!

    Flat earth, I can't really follow your reasoning? And see the posts on HIV and AIDS and endotoxin (from haidut).
  24. I'm very interested in learning more about stress being directly contagious @Suikerbuik. If you or @haidut or anyone else has information/additional reading that you can point me towards I would greatly appreciate it. I actually think it would make for an interesting separate thread if anyone is interested in starting one.
  25. Does it also work the other way around? I mean, being stress free being contagious.
  26. I think it's pretty obvious that if you are surrounded by stressed people you can easily become stressed. Have you never experienced this ? Unless you are a Zen master or have a very strong metabolism.

    This is the same as if you are sorrounded by greyish people you'll become grey yourself.

    Or as Peat has mentioned before, if you're surrounded by an authoritarian it can spread it to the rest of the group.
  27. Yes, I have experienced this and agree it's very obvious @Makrosky. I'm just interested in reading more on the topic because I work with terminally and critically ill people and my co-workers seem to be about as stressed as it gets. I no longer catch 'infections' from working in such an environment but if I'm completely honest the stress of dealing with extreme illness in others still takes a toll and I can see that my co-workers have a hard time coping as well often taking their frustrations out on each other. If at all possible I would like to read more on the topic to but I will probably still have to change my environment soon regardless as it is glaringly obvious it is not conducive to health. Thanks for your input.
  28. Blossom no doubt you will change your environment to one that is more conducive for your health when you are able to. I am in a similar place ( I don't work in a hospital) however, being around illness is a drain and I think this becomes more problematic as one's energy and health improves.
  29. Boss yells at man, man grumps at wife, wife scolds child, child kicks dog.

    The way I think about it is that good human contact and communication is so important to us social creatures.
    When we are stressed about present or past circumstances, or in pain, or short of energy, it's so much harder to communicate warmth, approval, respect for self and others, interest in each other, etc - the kinds of things that strengthen relationships and make us feel secure and happy with each other and give us a basis for excitement about living and learning.
    Where we personally are vulnerable to how other people relate to us (ie what kind of interactions make us feel stressed) probably has a bit to do with both our current health/metabolic status, but also which parts of our past experiences are still unresolved enough to be triggered by eg the a gloomy or pained or angry or fearful face or voice from someone else.

    I also wonder whether there might be something more direct and physical to do with the radiation our cells give out when we are physically close to each other. Maybe healing touch from a healthy and well-intentioned person involves transmitting something supportive, and stressed or unwell people don't have as much of this to give?
  30. I've noticed that too, the healthier I get the more aware and sensitive I am to how bothersome the stress and illness in others is to deal with on a consistent basis @moss! Thanks for understanding.
  31. I agree tara! Great explanation as always.
  32. I'm specifically curious about this aspect of being around numerous stressed/ill people for hours on end. I know Mother Theresa seemed to tolerate it fine but it doesn't seem like your average person has her gift!
  33. In the thread below you may find some interesting links:
    Stress increases weight gain by slowing down metabolism | Ray Peat Forum

    More directly:
    Cortisol increase in empathic stress is modulated by emotional closeness and observation modality:


    I am unaware of scientific studies and the possibility of physical trasnmitted stress through body radiation.
  34. It's kind of funny how everyone in college is sick all the time, and I haven't been nearly sick in three years.

    No one even has a clue.
  35. the Janine Roberts book is absolutely outstanding. Thanks for recommending it! It is an amazing eye-opener. And it's like a thriller, it is a real page turner.
  36. @haidut So could a "stomach bug" be cured by antibiotic for someone without charcoal?
  37. If it is indeed a bug and of bacterial type, then probably yes. Not sure why else you would take an antibiotic. The charcoal is used not to kill the bug but to reduce endotoxin absorption into the bloodstream. So, not much in common between the antibiotic and charcoal when it comes to killing bugs.
  38. Charcoal definitely reduces the severity of stomach bugs but I've never had it knock out the subsequent fever and lethargy the next day. I should say I only have experience with it twice.
  39. Thanks Tara. Apparently I could not find a way to reconcile those opposing issues myself. Some viruses actually do appear to be transmissible.

    HIV does not cause AIDS. This should be the model "viral hoax" because there is more information on this than any other viral hoax. I read Peter Duesberg's Inventing the AIDS Virus a decade ago and his arguments are irrefutable. Duesberg is a Virologist in Berkeley.

    I read a book called Virus Mania earlier this year, and this one expanded the viral hoax theory to include Polio, Mad Cow Disease, SARS, ect...

    Stephen Lanka is also a Virologist that believes that viruses are endogenous; and the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the PCR, Kary Mullis, is also convinced that AIDS is not caused by a virus. Aids is caused by heavy drug use, antibiotics, and AZT (the drug used to treat AIDS).

    Hemophiliacs get it from Factor VIII or something; I don't quite remember exactly .

    Visit this website for some really cool information on this stuff!

    Thanks for the book review. I will have to get a copy of that!
  40. Would cypro be more effective against "stomach bug" for the endotoxin, or antibiotic, do you think?
  41. They have different modes of action, so can't really be compared. It like the comparison between antibiotic and charcoal - i.e. apples to oranges.
  42. Aspirin
  43. To further speak to this I would argue that 'HIV' along with all the other viruses don't actually exist and what are called viruses are inseparable from celluar based stress/toxic factors. What is transmissible is stress and toxicity, not an actual virus. The Perth Group position on HIV/AIDS is much more tenable the Duesberg's who's position can actually get you into trouble because it is not internally consistent enough in scope. Regarding Lanka, who I very much agree with, if these things are endogenous they are not viruses in any literal physical sense. What exists is viral activity that can be differentiated by differing forms of stress and toxicity. Keep the V names if you want but do not pretend that they are literal exogenous viral life forms. I actually go a little further then Lanka and disagree with him that viruses only exist in simple cell forms like fungi. Unlike him I don't think that Phages are viruses either. I see these things as part of biosphere homeostasis involving vesicle dna propagation in a similar sense to what goes on within our own cells.

    To speak further to AIDS separately I take the PG position that it is mulitfactoral. It's not as simple as saying the things you say cause it. In a broad sense what we are talking about is some kind of morphostatic imbalance that can come about in several ways.
  44. Well, AIDS isn't just one disease; AIDS is a group of diseases. If someone has pneumonia and tests HIV+, then they have "AIDS". If a person gets pneumonia and tests HIV-, then they have pneumonia.

    Koposi's Sarcoma is caused by amyl nitrates; the mechanism is well understood. If you take poppers, get Kaposi's Sarcoma, and test HIV+, then you have "AIDS".

    There are many other ways to get "AIDS" as well; taking popper's isn't the only way.

    The easiest way to die from AIDS is to take AZT.
  45. I would say that 'AIDS' is really just a morphostatic energy based breakdown that has nothing to do with 'immunity'. Stefan Lanka sees it as an energy problem not an immunity problem and I think he is on the less wrong track. I agree for the most part on KS and nitrates particularly as they were used in the 70s and part of the 80s in the gay club scene. I agree on AZT though when it comes to the revised ARVs of the mid to late 90s through to today I do acknowledge that they have played a role as reducing agents barring a better more functional health based approach. The Duesberg types like those on rethinking aids tend to get irrationally absolutist against the drugs. Even though I come from the more radical Perth Group position on HIV/AIDS I do call a spade a spade though the reason why I think these drugs work is VERY different from the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy who think there is an actual virus that is being acted against.
  46. I think it's a diagnostic problem: a re-labeling of old diseases with a nonspecific test guaranteed to give 'false' positives.
    That's not to say that some drug users (illicit and pharmaceutical) didn't suffer from an immune deficiency. This is obvious since these people are taking drugs and probably not eating and sleeping well.

    Hardly nothing to do with a so-called retrovirus. There are so many contradictions in the AIDS Literature that it cannot possible be what they say it is.

    I have some virus books on my reading list. I would like to know more about them. I am fairly certain that some of them aren't exactly what they say they are; whether they be artifacts or endogenously produced polynucleotides. I think Lanka says the so-called Polio Virus is an artifact of cellular material being forced through the pores of a very fine filter during 'isolation'. This is highly interesting. You will find that researches went through great lengths to prove that Polio was infectious. If it were really an infectious entity, they why did thy find it necessary to inject so much of it directly into the brains of primates? You would think that a few nanomoles of it aspirated up their noses would have been sufficient.

    Stephen Lanka seems cool. I have only read Duesberg's Classic Book, a book called Virus Mania, and lots of material from VirusMyth.com. They all make wonderful points; the Perth Group gets into diagnostics and epistemology more than Duesberg, who destroys they Myth entirely from the point-of-view of Established Virology. I have read more from Kary Mullis that I have from Stephen Lanka.

    I have another book in the pipeline. We'll see if I get around to reading it. I think it was mentioned on this website here, but I cannot remember the title.
  47. With the caveat that I am not endorsing her blog in any way, have you looked at Jennifer Lake's posts on polio?
    Was the Polio Vaccine a Radiation Experiment?

    I think Peat said the same thing in one of his articles - Mad Cow and other prion diseases, polio, and a number of other paralytic conditions match perfectly the maps of radiaoactive fallouts around the world.
  48. A longer treatment can be found here (links to the articles above):
    I am going to read this article after a tobacco break; it is long. I will just say one criticism of this theory before I read this: Polio was more concentrated on the East Coast, correct?

    I think it was either radiation, pesticides, or vaccines that caused polio. You simply don't get infectious diseases localized across time and space like this. Where was Polio, say, in the rest of the world during the rest of history?

    You can find scientific articles on how arsenic paralyzes the hind-limbs of animals. Lead arsenate was used as a insecticide in the 50's.

    DDT is another candidate: ddt.png Molecules of this type can cause paralysis. The well-known Jake Leg Condition was caused by tricresyl phosphate, an adulterant in a bootleg 1920's alcoholic drink (not exactly bootleg, but a medicinal high-alcohol drink, Jamaica Ginger, that circumvented prohibition since it was 'medicinal'.) tricresyl phosphate.png This molecule has been proven to cause paralysis of the legs.

    So now I'm considering three possible causes of Polio: lead arsenate, DDT, and radiation. Interestingly, DDT was used to spray cattle (for fly repulsion) during the time the preceded Mad Cow Disease. This is something to consider as well in the etiology of that condition.

    Perhaps Polio was used to mask disabilities caused by all three of these things. Perhaps it is too simple-minded to think that Polio had only one cause. In the hysteria of the 50's, any case of paralysis would likely have fallen under the ægis of a Polio diagnosis.

    Either way, I think that a virus is the least-likely cause of so-called Polio.
  49. It's got to be worth something that you are in contact with someone who has the flu, and then two days later you also have it. Happened to me a few times, this year it happened and I even shot up to 105 but I didn't visit the doctor because everyone was getting better after five-six days, and sure enough I was fine after five-six days.
  50. I don't think anyone claims that viruses are exogenous life forms, do they?
    The standard model is that they are infectious agents, comprising importantly a bit of genetic material, that can get themselves reproduced inside the cells of life forms - eg animals, plants, bacteria. They can't do any of the other things that define life.
  51. In her book, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, Suzanne Humphries implicates DDT.
    I think probably many polio diagnoses were mis-diagnosed Lyme's too.
  52. +1.

    And some of the other illnesses that show clear patterns of infections. HIV, SARS, chicken pox, small pox, norovirus, foot and mouth disease, ...
    I'm rather glad that at least some relevant people are taking various viruses seriously as infectious agents.

    That doesn't mean there can't also have been some mistakes, misdiagnoses, and other confounding and contributing factors in these diseases.

    The important part is that they have something that is reproducible and transmissible.
  53. But I did feel better with charcoal... (didn't lower the fever)
  54. I'll be drinking charcoal next time I get the 'flu too.
  55. Well, Polio certainly isn't infectious. Even the CDC's virologists will admit that. So then: how possibly could there have been an 'epidemic' of a noninfectious disease?

    It has the hallmarks of being the modern industrial scapegoat: you cannot sue a virus.

    I finished those articles and they are interesting. What I consider the most important quote is from Dr. Ralph Scobey:
    This is like autism. A fashionable trend in diagnosis can blur the lines between different conditions. I think that all of the aforementioned chemicals (plus radiation) were responsible for causing Polio diagnosis in many cases (if not all).
  56. It's more then a diagnostic problem it's a paradigm problem in my view. I would again argue that the issue is morphostatic imbalance and bioenergy deficiency then an 'immune' deficiency. I would argue that clear on back to Mechnikov an 'immune' system was never discovered. Mechnikov simply discovered phagocytes(which do exist) but inferred the wrong conclusions based on the prevalence of the germ theory. The ultimate problem with HIV/AIDS is that there is no foundation of any sort for the V and I part of the acronym.

    In terms of endogeny and viruses Lanka argues that all so called viruses are really just endogenously generated sequences. His perennial argument is that viruses do not exist in complex cellular life. He makes an exception for more simple celled life and sees things like phages as actual existent viruses(I actually disagree with him on that). For me the guy who has done fairly definitive work on polio is Jim West. His independent research on digging up the works of Scobey and Biskind have been impeccable. He also agrees with the non virus hypothesis.

    The issue I have with Duesberg is that ultimately he never leaves the house of virology. He will never go to the level of rejecting it as such due to his legacy within it. It's sad because they have largely rejected him as a pariah at this point. It would be a big help if he went all the way to the Perth Group side of the spectrum which is more radical and internally consistent as well as backed up by evidence.
  57. Yeah, but Duesberg is still cool. This was the first book that I had read on the subject. Inventing the AIDS Virus has a hard-headed logical authoritarian feel that will convince people that wont be convinced by the Perth Group.
  58. Well maybe not life forms but certainly exogenous existence is the standard assumption and virology does try to concoct an evolutionary history of these 'exogenous infectious agents'. I reject that there exists exogenous viral pathogens. I think there are pathogenic viral processes that can be genetically mapped out but the source is always endogenous and linked to stress and toxicity. The outsider is the toxin. As Jim West argues virologists can never separate these infectious agents from either stress or toxicology. That's the factor that undoes much of their discourse. There was a poster on the now defunct questioningaids who makes a convincing argument that what 'viruses' actually are are different forms dna/rna cellular regulation. When a toxic/stress perturbance happens these latent regulators go into overdrive and overproduce and overtranscribe. I'll leave a link to his posting body of work which he sadly did not make more public or further flesh out.


    To speak to your other point about infection, I actually don't deny germ or viral infection and contagion. I simply see that stress and cell to cell communication from the stressed to the non stressed play a key role in this as opposed to this reductionist idea of an local infecting agent. That's how contagion happens in my view. It's a dynamic relational process of cell to cell communication. What you will find is that contagion tends to have an epicenter which peters out overtime simply due to tertiary positioned contact not being affected in the same way as the primary infected. There's a reason why Ebola has never mimiced a holywood movie like outbreak or contagion. Where you have something like that(say 1918) there's usually some kind of total war high stress environment going on. There's always some truth to myths.
  59. He may have been 20+ years ago as part of a gateway drug for various people however at this point I actually think his perennial position does not help. The notion of a 'harmless passenger virus' simply doesn't make sense from either extreme. The Perth Group have gone after him hard for that and the inner dissident debate on pathogenic virus vs no virus has led hiv/aids dissidence pretty much splintering off. I've been interested in that debate for a while now and what I notice is that virologists when pushed will always go back to first principle foundations when they are on the ropes. The PG and Lanka are in a better position to counter this then someone like Duesberg who simply will not let go of virology. At this point a gateway is no longer useful if it leads to a dead end. I also think the legacy of never taking the coctails has turned out to be harmful to some degree. You can only explain away dead dissidents for so long and you have those like Jonathan Barnett who did eventually go back on them albeit with a dissident mindset of coctail holidays and use of natural alternatives.

    I myself think the later 90s drugs do work and can help keep affected people alive barring better alternatives, BUT, my explanation for why the drugs can be effective under certain circumstances is VERY different from the orthodoxy.
  60. Cool forum. I'll post this excerpt from msn_Sofrat. I don't think he would mind:

    Plant viruses, the first viruses ever discovered do not exist!

    What are called plant viruses are messeneger Ribonucleoprotein particles (mRNA wrapped up in proteins) that are part of a long distance hormonal siganling system in plants.

    The mRNA sequences that have been called virus are mostly ones that are associated with programmed cell death processes in plants. For example when a annual plant starts to die after setting seed, or when an herbacious perenniel dies back to its roots. However mRNA sequences that are involved in growth regulation have also been called plant virus.

    Since 1999 there has been an intense investigation into how these mRNA long distance siganling sytems work in plants. I have been reading many paers on this in the last week and these things not only function just like plant viruses, but get this, they also function exactly according to the way my hypothesis says TMV really funtions. In other words they blow the self-replication hypothesis right out of the water.

    They have done studies that have found these cellular mRNA produce their own movement proteins to travel across the plasmodesmata (plant cell wall travel channels), just like a plant virus. They have found that they produce plant hormones, which corresponds to the fact that when a plant is inoculated with TMV its tissue ethylene hormone level shoot up high.

    They have shown that they are transmissble from one plant to the other via grafting, just like some of the early plant virus experiments did.

    And get this!! They have found that when one set of expression regulatory genes in the plant is mutated these signaling mRNA sequences will start to get over produced! The regulatory genes keep telling the DNA to make more signaling mRNA sequence.

    This is very powerful evidence for my Arsenic hypothesis. According to my view the Arsenic (a known mutagen, carcinogen, and oxidizing agent) builds up in the plant and then causes these "viral" mRNA aequences to get turned on early and in isolation. However the arsenic damages the regulation of the production of these sequences so the mRNA sequence is way way way way over produced and spreads out through out the plant. This is why tobacco plants from the field have TMV in them at such amzing concentrations. Only a tiny tiny amount of the mRNA is used to cause the disease symtoms. Most of it is stored in these huge cystal structures in the plants cells. These crystals of TMV can be larger than the whole nucleous of the cell, and there can be many many per cell. What this means is that these stored TMV rods can exist in the tens if not hundreds of millions per cell. Since only a 100 or so are needed per cell to cause the disease (maybe even less) this is why the disease can be transmitted from plant to plant several times. When you take some sap and inoculate a healthy plant all these stored TMV rods spread through out much of the plant. But once again on a small fraction cause the disease so most of the roda once again become stored. Ready for another transfer. This can be done several times before the sap losses potency. This lose of potency is something that virologist try to hide in their reports, but a few research in the early 20th century let the cat out of the bag on this one when comparing grafting vs small sap inculation methods. I will report in this in detail in my paper.

    Also this Arsenic induced over expresion of the TMV mRNA sequences can actually spread to other cells too. The way this works is when the regulatory gene gets damaged, and then starts telling the DNA to keep making and making TMV mRNA, this is done by an RNA signal to the DNA. However this RNA siganl can also travel to other cells via the plasmodesmata and start the over production of TMV mRNA in those cells to. What this means is that a whole bunch of cells will start making the TMV mRNA in massive amounts, which will then spread to the rest of the plant causing mosaic disorder.

    All this stuff is now being done with mRNA sequences that are admitted to be cellular mRNA. It s just like how resarchers are now admiting the amazing similarities between retroviruses and cellular exosomes.

    It is now fall. When you take a walk and see the leaves on the trees changing from green to red and yellow and orange, know that you are seeing the work of plant "viruses"."

    Interesting. So the dirty little secret of virology may be that viruses are simply messenger RNA.
  61. Yeah, that's one of many good threads by him. Unfortunately the links I posted don't seem to work(at least on my end) however just google softrat viruses or questioningaids and you'll eventually find his threads which have a lot of useful probable explanations for so called viruses. His hypothesis for ebola for instance is the most convincing explanation for the nature of that disease that I have come across.
  62. Yeah, I went over a few threads and it seems that Softrat is the most learned. Searching for his name with the Google operator 'site:' (softrat site:forums.questioningaids.com/) should yield all of his comments.

    Do you know if every 'virus' isolate is vacuum filtered?

    Perhaps the spherical protein capsules are simply the result of the nanoholes in the microfilter breaking apart cellular proteins and reforming them around other cellular debris such as RNA.

    A similar thing happens with milk homogenation. The large flat globules that would normally float to the top after a few days are forced at high pressure through a screen which causes the large micelles to break apart to form smaller micelles. The smaller micelles are spherical and can trap other particles inside of them such as xanthine oxidase upon formation. This micellar xanthine oxidase has been suspected to be involved in the etiology of cardiovascular disease.

    Maybe the different sizes of viruses are merely the result of vacuum filtering cellular material through different sizes of porcelain filters?

    Stephen Lanka has said this much about the Polio Virus:

    micelle.jpg A micelle is one way in which fat molecules orient themselves in aqueous solution. The hydrophobic tails are repelled from the water, and the hydrophillic heads are attracted to the water. Break this micelle apart in water and it will spontaneously form two smaller micelles.
  63. Lanka is definitely a default point for my kind of analysis. Throw in Jamie Cunliffe and his critique of immunology and you have some solid postulates to reject the current germ theory born dominant dogma.
  64. This thread fascinates me.... for anyone that might still be interested:

    here is Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt discussing the release of human endogenous retroviruses in response to environmental stress (EMF, chemicals, metals)

  65. also here is a short video discussing the bonghan ducts as dr peat brought up in his response. these are structures that involve the transport of microvesicles and retrotranspons

  66. I really wish he wouldn't use the term virus. All there really are are vesicles and vesicle variation. Other then that he's on the right track.
  67. I was listening to a recent episode of bulletproof radio (not a fan of Dave Asprey although he occasionally has interesting guests) and they were discussing a biotech company that synthesizes viruses that combat and kill cancer. They’re currently doing studies with dogs in which they inject the dogs with a virus that combats bone cancer specifically. I wasn’t aware that viruses could use code to kill malignant cells. Perhaps this is their primary purpose in a stress reaction?
  68. I think it really helps to call these things vesicles not viruses.
  69. If viruses have an endogenous origin, functioning as signaling and information transport agents, why does the body produce antigens against them? Most people have EBV-IgG but they don't have IL.6-IgG or TNF.a-IgG
  70. Well again I would argue that what are called viruses are simply vesicles plus toxicity or stress factors. To answer your question, have you looked into Jamie Cunliffe's counter hypotheses to immune system theory? Namely the morphostatic hypothesis? He gives a more credible explanation as to why the body has a system against outside pathogenic factors.

    Link below

  71. Fascinating. Thank you for sharing the link! I could get lost for days on that site :):
  72. Then why did some kids not get it even when exposed to another kid with the pox?
  73. I know this is quite old but this still deserves a response.

    The body produces autoantibodies all the time, and it is usually to the detriment of the organism.

    You can have antibodies to your own bones and joints leading to "autoimmune" arthritis.
  74. I imagine: not everyone is equally vulnerable to all the same pathogens, some have more effective immune responses to them, and the quantity of exposure may affect whether or how severely the system is infected. Maybe the immune response depends on the current state of health, previous training of the immune system, and maybe other supportive lifestyle/environmental factors. Eg. higher body temps can support the immune system in resolving infections. Higher body temps can be affected by climate, season, living conditions, as well as base metabolism. Probably nutrition makes a difference - deficiencies may be weakening. The thymus - a key organ in the development of immune responses, is apparently weakened by stress.
    Doesn't mean there are no infectious viruses, just that some people are more susceptible.
  75. [​IMG]
  76. Has anyone ever seen microscopic slides of exosomes entering the cell rather than those of them exiting? If so why would that happen?
  77. I can only speculate, but the exosomes that bud off a cell carry cell organelles, proteins or cellular material that other cells will take up. Supposedly exosomes are involved in cell-to-cell communication and if one cell is lacking something, it could signal to other cells that substance X is low. Conversely, if there is a surplus of something toxic in a cell, if that toxin is trapped in an extracellular vesicle that then interacts with another cell, it could damage that other cell or signal that other cell to produce defensive chemicals like prostaglandins or eicosanoids. I wonder if exosomes can "metastasize" or transfer cancer to other non-cancerous cells, in addition to changing the cellular field/environment.

    Microscopy, as how it's done nowadays, tends to inanimate, kill or "freeze" the cell in a moment in time and even the light from the microscope can supposedly affect these cellular functions. Supposedly Dark Field Microscopy is superior for observing some of these phenomena because you don't have the factor of light affecting cellular behavior.

    In this video they mention that mast cells produce exosomes, and this would likely INCREASE or spread the inflammatory reaction from an allergen. It's possible this is why someone might get hives that spread when they consume an allergen.
    One of the female scientists studying her PHD states she saw proteins from Cell B on Cell A indicating a transfer of proteins happened. Maybe if a cell no longer has use for a protein it can "lend" the protein to another cell?
  78. DFM also completely removes the cell from its environment. Its used to scam a lot of people into buying supplements and machines they dont need.
  79. Thanks but it does not answer my question. If the exosomes are being mistaken for so called viruses, why would they enter cells as presumably viruses can be seen doing?
  80. Why do exosomes enter other cells cells? Probably because they are cells, albeit partial cells, and are made of similar materials.
    Have you ever seen 2 or more drops of oil in a cup of water coalesce and become 1 big drop? Or how about soap suds combining with other soap suds to make a larger bubble?
    Electrochemical reasons, polarity and water-solubility also play a part.

    Some viruses may be exosomes and some viruses may just be viruses, but the real issue is that some viruses have never been isolated properly only through indirect markers. And in a few cases, when supposed virions/viral particles were photographed, they were likely exosomes.

    There is overlap between the sizes of the exosomes, viruses and microvesicles and because of this, it is possible someone may mistake one for the other two. I think in some instances, exosomes may be mistaken for viruses.

  81. SOMO that was very helpful indeed.

    "some viruses have never been isolated properly only through indirect markers."

    So it is not so black and white.

  82. Hmm well how do we suppose these monkies were infected with this non virus? Macaque monkeys can't become reinfected with COVID-19, small study suggests. | Live Science
  83. It's an interesting article, but I see some issues right off the bat soup.

    First, let me say that I do believe it is possible there is some strain of highly contagious pathogen that is affecting many people and if left untreated, in people with poor health, can become fatal.

    I'm not sure what they infected the throats of these monkeys with, but it definitely wasn't pure Covid19 virus. It was likely RNA-presumed-to-come-from-Covid19 but could have come from another source - another coronavirus, bacteria or fungi.

    1. As far as I know (I could be wrong), no scientist has properly isolated Covid19 yet according to Koch's Postulates.
    All attempts to isolate Covid19 use indirect markers, and the test that purports to show Covid19 uses indirect markers. You can show someone has Syphilis because you can isolate the bacteria in a petri dish, but this hasn't been done for Covid 19.

    One of the first groups to study corona in India (India is less prone to media mass hysteria than America or Europe) said this:
    2. The PCR/Viral Load test uses an indirect marker - RNA that-is-presumed-to-come-from-a-virus.
    You CAN show that a monkey was infected with some type of RNA, but you can not say that RNA is definitely from Covid19 because nobody has isolated Covid19 and sequenced it's entire genome.

    3. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the scientists and say hypothetically that the RNA they use IS 100% definitely from Covid19. It still doesn't prove infection. Kary Mullis who invented the PCR/VL test, says you can not use the test for Quantification or to diagnose a virus.
    The PCR test as it is used nowadays, does not measure virus as YES/NO, it measures HIGH/LOW, even though the inventor of the test says it is not a quantative tool.
    The point at which someone is diagnosed Positive is an arbitrary number that the lab decides. Someone can have Covid19 RNA in their blood and be considered Negative, if the number of RNA is below the cutoff.
    Did you know that the PCR test, as it's used to diagnose viruses has a numerical "Cutoff" after which you become "Positive".
    Someone that has 5000 RNAs, for example, is considered "Negative", but someone that has 5001 RNAs is considered "Indeterminate" and someone that has 6000 RNAs is considered "Positive."

    4. The other test used for diagnosis, the Antibody test, is a joke because antibodies cross-react with many antigens. Antibodies are said to be "promiscuous."
    Because antibody tests are unreliable, you can not diagnose someone (or a monkey) with Covid19 based off the antibody test.

    Sorry for the extremely long post, but I wanted to point out all the glaring issues with the testing, diagnosis and quantification of Covid19, because they are countless.
  84. Very nice post!! I bookmarked it for future reference when debating viral testing.