Some excellent Substack’s have popped up lately for those still unclear on the logical and experimental flaws underpinning the ontological status of viral cause.
4 Likes
Excellent. Thank you for posting!
So Influenza, was created and distributed through, at the very least, an american vaccination drive to inoculate soldiers headed off to WW1, where they would be stationed in places like Spain? …
Hmmm how very interesting…
But viruses aren’t real? No?
But then SV40, in the polio vaccine … Hmmm again?
mRNA on the covid jab.
Didn’t all of these jab’s use a known Virus as a backbone to get into the body?
I can’t seem to get myself to a place were Viruses aren’t real.
If viruses are defined as stable, transmissible agents capable of causing disease, their existence is highly questionable. However, if we instead define a virus as an unstable or dynamic entity—one pleiomorphic over time, transitioning between various multiplicities in complex biological molecules or metabolic by-products (materials produced and broken down by living organisms)—then yes, I would concede that viruses do indeed exist. This broader definition would encompass not only viruses but also every other class of functional molecular by-product of stress metabolism.
Furthermore, if we conceptualize viruses as natural products of metabolic activities induced under conditions of cellular stress—such as poisoning, radiation damage, or other forms of physiological disruption—it becomes entirely reasonable to assert their existence while simultaneously rejecting the notion that they are fundamentally causative agents of disease. In this framework, viruses might instead be understood as part of a cellular response to stress, wherein cells compartmentalize and expel harmful substances as a protective mechanism. In fact, this is the definition of the expulsion of miasma proposed in the 17th and 18th centuries by various schools of vitalist medical thought.
Thus, rather than being primary instigators of pathology, viruses could be seen as emergent phenomena arising as by-products of the organism’s attempt to maintain homeostasis under adverse conditions. This perspective invites a more nuanced understanding of viruses, situating them within the broader context of biological processes rather than attributing an autonomous or inherently pathogenic role to them.
There are two aspects to the problem: one is epistemological, and the second is technical. The technical issue is the problem of isolation techniques in biomedical sciences. It is not feasible to “isolate” any contingent substrate under any conditions from its environment. The processes methodologically applied during “isolation” necessarily alter the samples in question and, therefore, cannot be used to identify any singular entity without a mountain of unwarranted assumptions and uncertainty. These uncertainties do not disappear if medicine ignores them, as they have been for 150 years.
The logical issue is one of being and cause, which I addressed in a video chat submission last year. Understanding any derivative of analytical techniques deployed as an extension of the human sensory apparatus may only apprehend contingent beings, and even then, the apprehension is extremely limited in validity. Contingencies cannot be held to establish a first or ultimate cause in formal logic—Ergo, empirical data itself, as a derivative of an analytical method, deals exclusively with contingency and is a very weak mode of knowledge.
See i’m not willing to concede this point. I think those are exyzomes. Now, if we want to go further and say viruses might just be exyzomes from other life forms then i might be willing to go that path. But, Viruses have been shown to be foreign DNA codes wrapped in fatty bubbles.
Exyzomes Spelling?
Exosome.
The position you take is the third-way position taken by many in the community, unfortunately the same techniques using in the isolation methodology, are identical to those used to identify the exosomes.
Until techniques improve the exosome theory cannot. And, even if the techniques suitably identify exosome material without the uncertainty, cause cannot be established within a materialist contingency. Science simply cannot address the Essence of being, nor the Essence of matter. At least not in it’s current form.
Either way, thanks for the chat. It’s been awhile since I’ve written anything about biophysical theory, because, well, it’s boring.