looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Uganda
http://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_he_me/nigeria_polio_paradox
Officials say drug caused Nigeria polio
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Fri Oct 5, 3:55 PM ET
LONDON - A polio outbreak in Nigeria was caused by the vaccine designed to
stop it, international health officials say, leaving at least 69 children
paralyzed.
ADVERTISEMENT


It is a frightening paradox in a part of the world that already distrusts
western vaccines, making it even tougher to stamp out age-old diseases.
The outbreak was caused by the live polio virus that is used in vaccines
given orally - the preferred method in developing countries because it is
cheaper and doesn't require medical training to dispense.
"This vaccine is the most effective tool we have against the virus, but
it's like fighting fire with fire," said Olen Kew, a virologist at the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC and the World Health Organization announced the cause of the polio
outbreak last week, even though they knew about it last year.
Outbreaks caused by the oral vaccine's live virus have happened before.
But the continuing Nigerian outbreak is the biggest ever caused by the
vaccine. It also follows a nearly yearlong boycott of the vaccine in
Africa's most populous country because of unfounded fears the vaccine was
a Western plot to sterilize Muslims.
Officials now worry that the latest vaccine-caused Nigerian outbreak could
trigger another vaccine scare.
Experts say such outbreaks only happen when too few children are
vaccinated. In northern Nigeria, only about 39 percent of children are
fully protected against polio.
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.
Children who have been vaccinated excrete the virus, and in unsanitary
conditions it can end up in the water supply, spreading to unvaccinated
children.
In rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it
can mutate into a form that is dangerous enough to spark new outbreaks.
In 2001, officials reported that 22 children were paralyzed from polio in
the Dominican Republic and Haiti in this way. Subsequent vaccine-caused
polio outbreaks have occurred in the Philippines, Madagascar, China and
Indonesia.
In the West, the polio vaccine is given as a shot and uses an inactivated
virus, but that method is more expensive and requires training.
In Nigeria, the outbreak comes "in the wake of all the other problems
they've had in," said Dr. Donald A. Henderson, who led WHO's smallpox
eradication campaign in the 1970s.
In 2003, politicians in northern Nigeria canceled vaccination campaigns
for nearly a year, claiming the vaccine was a Western plot to sterilize
Muslims. That led to an explosion of polio, and the virus jumped to about
two dozen countries.
Now, health officials' decision to keep quiet about the cause of the
outbreak for so long may look suspicious.
Dr. David Heymann, WHO's top polio official, said that because the
organization considered the outbreak to be a problem for scientists and
not something that would change global vaccination practices, they thought
it was was unnecessary to immediately share publicly.
CDC's Kew added: "The people who are against immunization may seize on
anything that could strengthen their position, even if it's scientifically
untenable."
Rumors are still rife among Nigerians that the vaccine is unsafe, and
several religious leaders continue to lecture on its dangers. Another mass
vaccine boycott could lead to further polio spread, derailing
long-standing eradication efforts for good.
Nigerian health officials contacted by The Associated Press declined to
comment on the situation.
"Convincing the Nigerians to take even more of this vaccine will be a
tough sell," said Dr. Samuel Katz, an infectious diseases specialist at
Duke University and co-inventor of the measles vaccine.
More than 10 billion polio doses have been given to children worldwide,
and the vaccine has been credited with cutting polio incidence by more
than 99 percent since 1988. Far more children are paralyzed by the wild
polio virus than the virus spread by the oral vaccine. But no vaccine is
risk-free.
WHO said that changing the vaccination strategy is unnecessary. "It would
be nice if we had a more stable oral polio vaccine, but that's not the way
it is today," Heymann said. "We will continue working the way we have been
working because we don't want children to be paralyzed anywhere."

Hmm, well, maybe a closer look at the environmental conditions when deciding
where to give it might, with hindsight, have been a good thing to do. If
there is a risk of infection via water supply, surely this should have rung
the alarm bells and maybe in those areas, the more costly approach adopted.

drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

news:1191859985.123681.97620@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Vaccine logic is sometimes
very hard to accept or understand.
The logic is like entering a darkened room and continually running
into a pole.
The immunizers would issue you a helmet.
The vitalistic people would turn on a light first.

DrCee

Nice one!

On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.

How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?

drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.

How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?

Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple
generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human
body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the
virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After
sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the
culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the
virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans.

Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in
high school.

Bryan

drceephd@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in
Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.

How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?

Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple
generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human
body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the
virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After
sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the
culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the
virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans.

Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in
high school.

On Oct 10, 9:59 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.
How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?
Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple
generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human
body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the
virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After
sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the
culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the
virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans.

Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in
high school.

Bryan

Pretty basic biology my arse. Pretty basic brainwashing and
indoctrination I would accept.

First of all, how do you culture and grow a virus?

What lab conditions are required?

What medium does the vaccinator use?

You claim sub-optimal
conditions. What are they?

How do you change the medium to a sub-optimal medium without killing
the virus?

How do the viral mutations occur?

Sorry, but your concept is all crap.

No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. Hear that?

The reason for that the so called virus only exists within a LIVING
CELL.

Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral
particle exists.

They are wrong, but that is what they believe.

Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead
cellular remains.

A virus cannot exist outside of a living cell.

Virology 101 will tell you that.

You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to
efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the
ability to efficiently grow in humans?" What the heck does that
mean? Show us some proof of that conjecture.

The virus is not a living organism. Such a dead piece of cellular
debris cannot come back to life and infect or sicken anything.

The
only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry
into the human body is by the hypodermic syringe.

In article <feilrm$bk7$1@news.ucalgary.ca>,
Bryan Heit <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drceephd@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in
Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.
How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?
Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple
generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human
body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the
virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After
sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the
culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the
virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans.

Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in
high school.

Cee likes to claim he's a scientist. He's no more a doctor than is
Dr. Seuss.

drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:59 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.
How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?
Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple
generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human
body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the
virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After
sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the
culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the
virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans.

Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in
high school.

Bryan

Pretty basic biology my arse. Pretty basic brainwashing and
indoctrination I would accept.

First of all, how do you culture and grow a virus?

Easy. You take competent cells (fancy way of saying cells the virus
infects) in a petri dish, add the virus, and put it in an incubator.
The virus grows in the cells, and you can then isolate it at will.

What lab conditions are required?

37C/5%CO2 incubator, competent cells (exact type depends on the virus),
and culture medium (usually supplemented with serum and antibiotics).

What medium does the vaccinator use?

Depends on the cell type under culture. Commonly used ones are M199,
and RPMI. But there is also DMEM, API, and a whole bunnch of others.

You claim sub-optimal
conditions. What are they?

Usually lower temperature - 20-25C.

How do you change the medium to a sub-optimal medium without killing
the virus?

Viruses are non-living, therefore you cannot "kill" them. So long as
the cells are competent, and the cells can survive the culture
condition, the virus can grow in them.

How do the viral mutations occur?

Same way all mutations occur - through replication errors and
environmental factors.

Sorry, but your concept is all crap.

No, its basic science - the kind we have summer students in the lab do
all the time.

No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. Hear that?

of course not - viruses are not living things.

But we do culture and purify viruses all the time - I've done that
several times as part of my work. We even use mutated viruses as
gene-delilvery veihicles, in which we insert a gene of interest into a
replication-defective virus, and then use that virus to transport the
gene into a cell, or animal, of interest.

For something "imaginary", they do a pretty damned good job in the lab...

The reason for that the so called virus only exists within a LIVING
CELL.

Actually, with only the rarest of exceptions most viruses have a lytic
stage, wherein the virus deliberatly lyses a cell and releases its
capsulated form into the environment.

which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You
can isolate pre-viral particles and genomes from infected cells.

Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral
particle exists.

Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells
demonstrates clearly that viruses are real.

They are wrong, but that is what they believe.

They are right, and have over a centuries worth of data to support them.
you have what - nothing but unfounded, uncited claims which you cannot
back up. I know where I'll be placing my bets.

Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead
cellular remains.

No. Its a pretty complex protein-nucleic acid-membrane complex with
conserved structure and function. Nothing like it is produced by
healthy cells, nor is the genetic information used to make the virus a
component of any cells DNA.

A virus cannot exist outside of a living cell.

Wrong. Viruses exist outside of living cells all the time. They just
cannot replicate outside of a living cell.

Virology 101 will tell you that.

Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I
can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real virology course on
this planet will claim the things you have claimed.

You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to
efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the
ability to efficiently grow in humans?" What the heck does that
mean? Show us some proof of that conjecture.

I thought it was obvious - the virus no longer replicates efficiently in
our bodies, meaning it does not grow as quickly, or infect as many
cells, as does wild-type virus.

non-existent, simply because the immune system generates a response that
stops it long before it causes disease.


The virus is not a living organism. Such a dead piece of cellular
debris cannot come back to life and infect or sicken anything.

Who ever claimed it did. All a virus does it transport genes from one
cell to a next. It is those genes, which code for more viruses, which
cause the problem. the viral particles themselves are nothing more then
a container to keep those genes safe between victims.

The
only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry
into the human body is by the hypodermic syringe.

No. The viral capsid contains multiple proteins whos job is to bind to
the target cells, and mediate viral entry. Many viruses actually trick
our own cells into taking them up, but mimiking things our cells would
normally want to take in. This is a well established area of science,
with thousands of scientific papers to its credit.

Bryan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
My credentials have been posted as well.

On Oct 11, 10:04 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 9:59 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:22 pm, "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html
The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus.
How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their
kidneys?
Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple
generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human
body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the
virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After
sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the
culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the
virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans.
Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in
high school.
Bryan
Pretty basic biology my arse. Pretty basic brainwashing and
indoctrination I would accept.
First of all, how do you culture and grow a virus?
Easy. You take competent cells (fancy way of saying cells the virus
infects) in a petri dish, add the virus, and put it in an incubator.
The virus grows in the cells, and you can then isolate it at will.

First you need "competent cells." This means cells that can act
according to what you want to happen later.

In the case of polio,
maybe this is why monkey kidneys were chosen for the competent cells?

You then add the virus and wait for the cells to uptake the particles
and produce more of the desired viral particles. Of course, you must
destroy the cells to then isolate the viral particles contained.

You may be able to do this under laboratory conditions, but those
conditions do not exist in the real world. Your are fooling yourself
with laboratory tricks.
What lab conditions are required?
37C/5%CO2 incubator, competent cells (exact type depends on the virus),
and culture medium (usually supplemented with serum and antibiotics).

Let's see near body temp and 5%CO2. Do you find those conditions in a
human body?

Competent cells. Which human cells are competent?

Then we would need a human body to use as a medium and ply it with
serm and antibiotics to get real world polio.

Don't think so.
What medium does the vaccinator use?
Depends on the cell type under culture. Commonly used ones are M199,
and RPMI. But there is also DMEM, API, and a whole bunnch of others.

You claim sub-optimal
conditions. What are they?
Usually lower temperature - 20-25C.

How do you change the medium to a sub-optimal medium without killing
the virus?
Viruses are non-living, therefore you cannot "kill" them. So long as
the cells are competent, and the cells can survive the culture
condition, the virus can grow in them.

Wait a minute here. "Viruses are non-living, therefore you cannot
"kill" them. Why in the hell should I be afraid of them then?

All
they can do in the real world is to rot or be digested.

How do the viral mutations occur?
Same way all mutations occur - through replication errors and
environmental factors.

Sounds like excuses to me to explain certain data.

Sorry, but your concept is all crap.
No, its basic science - the kind we have summer students in the lab do
all the time.

Brainwashing and indoctrination can occur at any time.


No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. Hear that?
of course not - viruses are not living things.

Well, we do agree here. A viral particle is not a living thing.

But we do culture and purify viruses all the time - I've done that
several times as part of my work. We even use mutated viruses as
gene-delilvery veihicles, in which we insert a gene of interest into a
replication-defective virus, and then use that virus to transport the
gene into a cell, or animal, of interest.

More laboratory tricks that do not and cannot occur in the real world,
thank goodness.

For something "imaginary", they do a pretty damned good job in the lab...

The reason for that the so called virus only exists within a LIVING
CELL.
Actually, with only the rarest of exceptions most viruses have a lytic
stage, wherein the virus deliberatly lyses a cell and releases its
capsulated form into the environment.

Now you are telling me that a dead piece of organic material can
perform some "action?" That the virus has a lytic stage? Don't think
so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action.

It is this form of the virus
which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You
can isolate pre-viral particles and genomes from infected cells.

Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral
particle exists.
Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells
demonstrates clearly that viruses are real.

Cells can excrete and must excrete to maintain life. Cell shit may
contain dead particles but it is still shit.

They are wrong, but that is what they believe.
They are right, and have over a centuries worth of data to support them.
you have what - nothing but unfounded, uncited claims which you cannot
back up. I know where I'll be placing my bets.

Your cannot have centuries worth of data to support the claim. The
electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in
the 1930s.

The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900.

The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many
times.

However, it is unlikely that you have ever been exposed to the
truth.

Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead
cellular remains.
No. Its a pretty complex protein-nucleic acid-membrane complex with
conserved structure and function. Nothing like it is produced by
healthy cells, nor is the genetic information used to make the virus a
component of any cells DNA.

A virus cannot exist outside of a living cell.
Wrong. Viruses exist outside of living cells all the time. They just
cannot replicate outside of a living cell.

You said previously that viral particles outside the cell were non-
living, therefore dead.

Virology 101 will tell you that.
Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I
can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real virology course on
this planet will claim the things you have claimed.

I would agree with that. You cannot deceive and con students properly
by confusing them with the truth. You must teach only what the
medical monopoly will allow or lose your position and reputation.

You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to
efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the
ability to efficiently grow in humans?" What the heck does that
mean? Show us some proof of that conjecture.
I thought it was obvious - the virus no longer replicates efficiently in
our bodies, meaning it does not grow as quickly, or infect as many
cells, as does wild-type virus.

You claim it, but where is the proof? > How does the wild-type get past
our digestive system, our absorption system, our immune system, and
the liver to do its dastardly deed?


As such the disease it causes is
non-existent, simply because the immune system generates a response that
stops it long before it causes disease.


The virus is not a living organism. Such a dead piece of cellular
debris cannot come back to life and infect or sicken anything.
Who ever claimed it did. All a virus does it transport genes from one
cell to a next. It is those genes, which code for more viruses, which
cause the problem. the viral particles themselves are nothing more then
a container to keep those genes safe between victims.

If this were true or possible those eating carrots would take on the
characteristics of a carrot. Those eating any food, containg DNA and
viral particles would take on the characteristics of the food eaten.
As I said, these things cannot and do happen in the real world.
You have absolutely no scientific proof of what you are claiming. It
is merely an excuse, a rationale, to support your contentions.

The
only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry
into the human body is by the hypodermic syringe.
No. The viral capsid contains multiple proteins whos job is to bind to
the target cells, and mediate viral entry. Many viruses actually trick
our own cells into taking them up, but mimiking things our cells would
normally want to take in. This is a well established area of science,
with thousands of scientific papers to its credit.

Only in the laboratory. In the real would the suckers would be
digested, destroyed, then either aborbed as food or excreted. Your
lab data proves why everything is digested and reduced to its
elemental particles prior to absorbtion and use as new building
material for the body. Eaten protein is reduced to the elemental
proteins, absorbed, and then converted back into human protein. This
happens with every type of food substance. It the body did not do it
this way, your laboratory tricks could kick in as seen in the lab.

Bryan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
My credentials have been posted as well.

DrCee. BS, MS, PhD, PhD.
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Not a member of the church of modern medicine.

You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to
efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the
ability to efficiently grow in humans?" What the heck does that
mean? Show us some proof of that conjecture.
I thought it was obvious - the virus no longer replicates efficiently in
our bodies, meaning it does not grow as quickly, or infect as many
cells, as does wild-type virus.

You claim it, but where is the proof?

How does the wild-type get past
our digestive system,

our absorption system,

our immune system,

and
the liver to do its dastardly deed?

As such the disease it causes is
non-existent, simply because the immune system generates a response that
stops it long before it causes disease.

The virus is not a living organism. Such a dead piece of cellular
debris cannot come back to life and infect or sicken anything.
Who ever claimed it did. All a virus does it transport genes from one
cell to a next. It is those genes, which code for more viruses, which
cause the problem. the viral particles themselves are nothing more then
a container to keep those genes safe between victims.

If this were true or possible those eating carrots would take on the
characteristics of a carrot.

Those eating any food, containg DNA and
viral particles would take on the characteristics of the food eaten.
As I said, these things cannot and do happen in the real world.

You have absolutely no scientific proof of what you are claiming. It
is merely an excuse, a rationale, to support your contentions.

The
only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry
into the human body is by the hypodermic syringe.
No. The viral capsid contains multiple proteins whos job is to bind to
the target cells, and mediate viral entry. Many viruses actually trick
our own cells into taking them up, but mimiking things our cells would
normally want to take in. This is a well established area of science,
with thousands of scientific papers to its credit.

Only in the laboratory.

In the real would the suckers would be
digested, destroyed, then either aborbed as food or excreted.

Your
lab data proves why everything is digested and reduced to its
elemental particles prior to absorbtion and use as new building
material for the body.

Eaten protein is reduced to the elemental
proteins,

absorbed, and then converted back into human protein. This
happens with every type of food substance. It the body did not do it
this way, your laboratory tricks could kick in as seen in the lab.

Bryan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
My credentials have been posted as well.

DrCee. BS, MS, PhD, PhD.

drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:




Because they are capable of taking over your own cells, and utilizing
your cells biochemical processes to make copies of itself. In doing so
they cause tissue damage, disease, and possibly death.

All
they can do in the real world is to rot or be digested.

Nope. The genes that they carry can be identified by your bodies
gene-processing enzymes, and thus be expressed, causing disease.

Its reality. All supported by numerous scientific studies.

? Don't think
so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action.

It is not dead - it is non-living. Lots of non-living things preform
actions - cars, computers, microwaves...

It is this form of the virus
which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You
can isolate pre-viral particles and genomes from infected cells.

Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral
particle exists.
Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells
demonstrates clearly that viruses are real.

Your cannot have centuries worth of data to support the claim. The
electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in
the 1930s.

Actually, the first viral particles were observed by John Buist in 1886.
He isolated and viewed small pox viruses through a light microscope.

That's right - no electron microscope needed - many viruses are large
enough to be seen with conventional light microscopy. Pox viruses being
among the biggest.

The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900.

Hardly, it was proposed in the 1800's, and was well accepted within a
decade or so after that.

The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many
times.

No, it hasn't. And I challenge you to provide a link to a single
scientific study which says otherwise.

Virology 101 will tell you that.
Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I
can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real virology course on
this planet will claim the things you have claimed.

I would agree with that. You cannot deceive and con students properly
by confusing them with the truth. You must teach only what the
medical monopoly will allow or lose your position and reputation.

Lol, here we go - the conspiracy angle. Cannot deal with the facts, so
all of the facts must therefore be a product of some vast conspiracy
involving millions of people world-wide. Maybe there's an alien or two
in there as well?

The germ, viral, retro viral, prion, etc, etc, theory of disease is

On Oct 11, 2:25 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:



Because they are capable of taking over your own cells, and utilizing
your cells biochemical processes to make copies of itself. In doing so
they cause tissue damage, disease, and possibly death.

All
they can do in the real world is to rot or be digested.
Nope. The genes that they carry can be identified by your bodies
gene-processing enzymes, and thus be expressed, causing disease.

I see this as one of the biggest problems with the viral part of the
germ theory. You do not and cannot explain with valid data where
these killer viruses hideout waiting to attack an unwary human. You
further cannot show me any documented evidence whereby these dead
viral particles can evade the human defense system of strong acid,
digestion, mucous linings, immune system, protein typing, etc. to gain
entry to any living organism.

Living organisms eat DNA and your proposed viral particles all the
time. We may even breathe them and drink them, but the viral
particles have no means to alter our genes. Generally we call the
material food. Eating the flesh, the DNA, the viral particles found
in the cow, do not convert our genes to bovine genes. In the same way
that the oncogene theory of cancer was debunked, the viral theory of
disease is false.

Its reality. All supported by numerous scientific studies.

Quite so. All psuedo scientific and not real world. Feed your viral
particles to animals and what are the results?

Does it take only one
viral particle or millions of the little beasties to enter the body
and cause harm?

? Don't think
so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action.
It is not dead - it is non-living. Lots of non-living things preform
actions - cars, computers, microwaves...

Hardly a reasonable comparison. Do cars enter trucks and have them
produce cars via their genes?

Do computers reproduce themselves?

It is this form of the virus
which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You
can isolate pre-viral particles and genomes from infected cells.
Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral
particle exists.
Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells
demonstrates clearly that viruses are real.

This proves only that viral particles may exist outside of cells
before they rot by bacterial action. Where do you find these dead
critters? On our tables, our hands, toilet seats? Where are they
outside of the lab?

Your cannot have centuries worth of data to support the claim. The
electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in
the 1930s.
Actually, the first viral particles were observed by John Buist in 1886.
He isolated and viewed small pox viruses through a light microscope.

That is a falsehood. People of that era called things whatever they
chose.

The concept of the day was the filterests versus the non-
filterests.

Bacteria can be collected on a filter. There was
something in some fluids that had enzymatic activity that could not be
filtered out. If there were viral particles, they had to be in the
non-filterable part of the experimental fluid.

Viral particles are
too small to be seen with a light microscope.

The concept was not
validated until the electron microscope came into being.

That's right - no electron microscope needed - many viruses are large
enough to be seen with conventional light microscopy. Pox viruses being
among the biggest.

You are then greatly mislead if you believe that.

The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900.
Hardly, it was proposed in the 1800's, and was well accepted within a
decade or so after that.

Another falsehood. The germ theory did not come into promenince until
the work of Pasteur, during the late 1800s.

The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many
times.
No, it hasn't. And I challenge you to provide a link to a single
scientific study which says otherwise.

Try reading the scientifically published work of A. Bechamp, PhD, MD.
You will find that he destroyed the germ theory of disease.

He proved
that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow
with work published in 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the
Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and
doctors have to say on the subject.

Virology 101 will tell you that.
Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I
can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real virology course on
this planet will claim the things you have claimed.
I would agree with that. You cannot deceive and con students properly
by confusing them with the truth. You must teach only what the
medical monopoly will allow or lose your position and reputation.
Lol, here we go - the conspiracy angle. Cannot deal with the facts, so
all of the facts must therefore be a product of some vast conspiracy
involving millions of people world-wide. Maybe there's an alien or two
in there as well?

Unfortunately the medical monopoly exists.

You are a beneficiary of
that monopoly.

I was also at one time. The conspiracy of the medical
monopoly is well documented and no longer well hidden. Try reading
some of that literature.

The germ, viral, retro viral, prion, etc, etc, theory of disease is
false.

That is why we have so much sickness and disease in America.