Believe it or not, Viruses may not exist at all!

Check out this link -- www.neue-medizin.com...

Seems Viruses may not even exist. Of course, there are communicable illnesses but the label of "Virus" is apparently a tool of you know who for you know what.

Originally posted by ReelView
Check out this link -- www.neue-medizin.com...

Seems Viruses may not even exist. Of course, there are communicable illnesses but the label of "Virus" is apparently a tool of you know who for you know what.

Right, this is irresponsible toss. AIDS exists, and you should ask latter day sufferers what they think. We have recognised viruses under microscopes, developed vaccines to mumps, small pox, you name it. This thread is a pile is # and if my entry is going to be cut out, so should this thread.

Originally posted by redled
...We have recognised viruses under microscopes...

Just a minor point, but no one has viewed living viruses under microscope in a VERY long time. Dr. Royal Raymond Rife developed a microscope whereby you could see living viruses, but it lost out to GE's development of the Electron Microscope.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by redled
...We have recognised viruses under microscopes...

Just a minor point, but no one has viewed living viruses under microscope in a VERY long time. Dr. Royal Raymond Rife developed a microscope whereby you could see living viruses, but it lost out to GE's development of the Electron Microscope.

That is because electron microscopes kill their subjects. Biology Education: Cells can be seen by light, Viruses need electrons bombarded at them which kills them, so it is no suprise that what we 'see' is dead, and we have to look for indirect methods of spotting things. Next you'll tell me atmos do not have nuclei because we cannot see them. God help the founders of DNA theory, that was all X-ray crystallography.

Great efforts to subvert the contents. Somebody seems to be really afraid of truth getting out.

I think it's very likely following the link that "Virus" as a creature of nature doesn't exist. Yes people get sick, yes there are photos put up claiming to be Viruses but they aren't. Virus seems to be a catch all for some medical illnesses that science can't identify the clear cause but wants to treat. People do get sick and in some cases can transfer the illness but what that illness really is, science doesn't know. However, pretending they know, means they can pretend to treat, make money, in some cases spread other illnesses, and misdirect from other possible causes like vaccines, GMO, etc..

Is it a kind of Medicine dogma?
Do you see some similarities between Medicine and Religion?

SNC.

I find it compelling that there was no HIV virus that had been isolated at the time. I also do not understand how viruses can be so different, and yet there arent that many strains. Is there even a theory on the origin of viruses?

To put it another way, certain esoteric writings have indicated that sterilizing against germs by heat such as boiling water is not completely effective as some germs are not of physical origin. IE they effect the physical but are of an ethereal or other dimensional origin. They effect the physical because a life form such as a human or animal has subtle bodies and therefore has an "inter dimensional" component. Perhaps illnesses known as "Viral" are in reality more subtle in nature than "science" would lead us to believe. Repressing knowledge of the subtle seems to be a common theme in science ie evolution where life is purported to originate from the material world (energy comes from matter).


Also there is the belief that some illnesses enter the body through the eyes and that looking through a red filter helps stop the illness. This does not make sense in a physical only view of reality. But, makes more sense when life is viewed as multidimensional.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


a very long time... like, this morning, by me.


lib.bioinfo.pl...:16140755

thats the technique i used, and it allows the real-time, live imaging of honest to goodness, real life, intact, living, functional viruses as they go about their business of infecting cultured mammalian cells. In addition, i also biopsied some mouse liver this afternoon, and found the same fluorescent virus particles INSIDE of living liver tissue

Pretty remarkable all round for something that doesnt exist.

threads like this just go to show that absolute ignorance of some of the people here.

A little bit of google will help edjumacate you to the point where it might be possible to give the impression you actually KNOW what your talking about...

reply to post by ReelView


Ahh, now it makes sense. So can I ask a stupid question? What do you attribute the successful treatment of certain viruses too then?

Originally posted by GlassRunner
I find it compelling that there was no HIV virus that had been isolated at the time. I also do not understand how viruses can be so different, and yet there arent that many strains. Is there even a theory on the origin of viruses?

at 'the' time?

or, at 'this' time, as in, today?

if so, Are you on crack?

The AIDS virus (HIV- you cant call it HIV virus, because the V stands for virus...so thats Human Immunodeficiency virus virus) was identified, isolated and proven the causative agent of AIDS in the 80's and 90's.

your second statement is based on your mistaken understanding that there are only a few virus strains. In reality, each 'type' of virus can give rise to many strains very quickly, becuase of a viruses mutation rate- HIV alone has over 30 strains, HPV (human papiloma virus) has over 100 strains. Also, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of different 'types' of viruses- pretty much every single class of organism and every species alive has a co-evolved virus species associated with it. Only a fraction cause overt disease, since the optimal life-cycle of a virus isnt to kill its host, its to maintain a low level persistance for as long as possible, without causing enough damage to instigate a host immune response or kill the host.

and yes, there is a theory-

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

although, since that link takes you to a real life, peer reviewed source, you probably wont read it...

... since everyone knows that scientists are working for 'the man'...



and that last anonymous post was mine too- i hadnt logged in yet.

edit- although, the post i refer to doesnt appear to have been placed yet.


[edit on 13-11-2008 by johnDoe21]

me again...

i looked at the website (i admit, after i posted my initial 2 replies) and now see that i made an error.

In even responding to such a ridiculous load of total drivel in the first place.

There are so many errors in that single web-page, i'd be embarassed to have my name plastered on it, unlike the 'famed virologist' Dr Lanka, who apparently has no such concerns.

And by the way, the little panel picture of HIV- that really is HIV. And the one of Adenovirus, guess what, it really is adenovirus. I know, becuase i work with Adv every day of the week and work next door to one of the premier HIV research labs in the country.

email Dr Lenka and ask hime to show the picture of the uninfected cell control experiment, where these structures appear 'due to artifacts of staining/sample preparation'.

What? oh, he doesnt have one? why is that? What? Oh, he's full of crap and is pulling this stuff out his butt? thought so.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by johnDoe21]

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by redled
...We have recognised viruses under microscopes...

Just a minor point, but no one has viewed living viruses under microscope in a VERY long time. Dr. Royal Raymond Rife developed a microscope whereby you could see living viruses, but it lost out to GE's development of the Electron Microscope.

a very long time... like, this morning, by me.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

thats the technique i used, and it allows the real-time, live imaging of honest to goodness, real life, intact, living, functional viruses as they go about their business of infecting cultured mammalian cells. In addition, i also biopsied some mouse liver this afternoon, and found the same fluorescent virus particles INSIDE of living liver tissue

Pretty remarkable all round for something that doesnt exist.

threads like this just go to show that absolute ignorance of some of the people here.

A little bit of google will help edjumacate you to the point where it might be possible to give the impression you actually KNOW what your talking about...


edit- this was the anonymous post that for some reason didnt appear- so i cut and pasted into a reply. sorry in advance if it appears later and this turns out to be a repeat post

Originally posted by johnDoe21
threads like this just go to show that absolute ignorance of some of the people here.

A little bit of google will help edjumacate you to the point where it might be possible to give the impression you actually KNOW what your talking about...

Most do not observe viruses.
Here we question everything.
Oh yes and shall place a "?" after my statements when I know what I'm talking about as well?
After all, HIV was created in a lab.

As someone who works with HIV in a lab on a daily basis, I can tell you that it is a real virus. You don't need to be able to observe a virus to be able to see it's effect on a living A.301 cell. Nor do you need to see it to understand that it replicates by invading a cell and altering the DNA structure of the cell by adding it's own RNA stand to it.

HIV is real and no it wasn't created in the lab.

It is a mutated virus that simply made the leap from animal to human just like the avian flu will due when it is finshed cooking.

On a side note. My superior has just developed a new vaccine for the eventual outbreak of a Pandemic Avian flu (it will happen) based on a bacteriophage vector. Wait for it........and remember you heard it here first.

I'm no expert on virology or whatever it's called.

but isn't the basic definition of "life form" something that experiences actual metabolic processes?

I haven't heard of a virus that experiences metabolic processes.

so isn't a virus more like a prion, where it's merely an incredibly complex molecule that interacts with an organisms' own internal biochemical processes to detriment or benefit? (however it's evolved / designed to do)

as opposed.. to an actual "life form" ... like a protozoa, bacteria, mycoplasma, fungi etc... something that actually consumes, digests, processes the consumed material, creates energy, synthesizes material for nutrition, and waste?


so viruses are more like nanobots.
molecular machines.

well.. just as much as WE are "molecular machines"...
but i'd say these are the most basic of all.

-

[edit on 15-11-2008 by prevenge]

Originally posted by kleverone
On a side note. My superior has just developed a new vaccine for the eventual outbreak of a Pandemic Avian flu (it will happen) based on a bacteriophage vector. Wait for it........and remember you heard it here first.

That's great.

How did he get around the protein tubules in which H5N1 hides bits of double-stranded RNA, to stop it prompting an antiviral immune response?

reply to post by redled


Respectfully you are right about them being able to actually view the AIDS virus and the ability for them to develop vaccines. But you must also consider the fact that a vaccine is simply a trace amount of the subject virus itself. And dont you think its odd that we are vaccinating more people for more things but the infant mortality rate is higher?

There is real government legislation that suggests that our wonderful government spent billions of dollars in the late 70's or early 80's on unknown medical research. Now, with that being said, what could they have spent that much money on inconclusively?

I will find the link and send it to you if you would like.

~S

reply to post by kleverone


The lower primates are only able to carry the S.I.V virus. And if I am to believe that AIDS originated with chimps then where is the monkey/chimpanzee population in San Francisco and Haiti?

I suspect that the vaccines that are every where may be the vehicle by which to introduce new and dread illnesses...keeps the pharmacuetical companies busy.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


You can stop viruses from coding, basically, but most viruses actually can't be treated. You can treat their symptoms, though. Bacteria are the ones that have medications and things. Antibiotics don't work for viruses because viruses aren't really biotic...