"All models are wrong. Some models are useful." Picked up that quote somewhere and I like to use it.
I believe the virus model is "wrong" and I'm not sure it's actually useful. The model of a "virus" is a particle containing DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein coat, which gains entry to a cell in order to hijack its machinery in order to make…
"All models are wrong. Some models are useful." Picked up that quote somewhere and I like to use it.
I believe the virus model is "wrong" and I'm not sure it's actually useful. The model of a "virus" is a particle containing DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein coat, which gains entry to a cell in order to hijack its machinery in order to make copies of itself, which blow up the cell from the inside, killing it. Those copies go on to infect other cells and do the same thing. That's pretty specific. It's a particle of a certain size with a very specific mode of operation.
Here's how I think about this issue: NAV crew has some serious critiques of the METHODOLOGY of virology. If we ask the very simple question - HOW do you know a particular virus exists? - virologists will tell you one or more of three very specific things:
1) we "isolated" it - which does not mean they separated it from all other particles which would allow them to characterize, photograph, and sequence the DNA/RNA of said particles in order to test their theory. It means that they took a sample from a human and added it to usually diseased monkey kidney cells, which were then starved of nutrients and dosed with kidney-toxic antibiotics, and when the cells start to die, they point and say, "see, the cells die because of the virus" but they don't bother to do a control experiment with every step except the actual human sample. So how exactly do they know what is killing those cells? I don't know. I can't find anyone who can really defend this method or respond to the specific critique, other than "a virus needs a cell to replicate." Okay, but that is just the part where it's making copies, does the virus exist outside of the cell? It would have to according to their model because how else does the "virus" pass between cells and between people?
2) we took pictures - but again, the process involved in taking those pictures is to put the results of step one through further insults with alcohol, chemicals and resin, to dry it out then form it into a block, slice it really thin and then bombard it with electrons. What they're taking a picture of is clearly dead, but if they haven't separated out the specific particle they are claiming is a virus before taking a picture (like, ever) how the heck do they know what a "virus" particle even looks like? They just look for something they think fits the bill and add an arrow. How do they know what that specific arrow is pointing at? The result of the METHOD of taking those pictures seems very destructive and likely doesn't represent what actually happens to live tissue inside a body. Again, I can't find a decent rebuttal to a logical critique.
3) we have the genome sequenced - but again, the METHOD of puting the results of step one in a blender to then take out millions of tiny pieces of genetic code and use a computer program to splice them back together. But again, if they've never separated out the particles and sequenced them whole, what the heck is the computer program constructing? And how do they know which particles are from a "virus" versus the rest of whatever the human coughed up and whatever else is in the soup?
Now, if these are invalid critiques, why are they invalid? Why won't anyone address them? What questions should I be asking? Most of the defenders of virology don't even bother to understand these issues at all, I think because of the militant wing of team NAV that makes asking basic questions seem like crazy talk.
The whole question of whether any disease can be passed between humans has logical critiques as well, but it's so ingrained in the paradigm, most people can't even think outside of it in order to genuinely question it. It's a really basic assumption that appears to be unquestionable. And I don't think any assumptions are beyond question.
"All models are wrong. Some models are useful." Picked up that quote somewhere and I like to use it.
I believe the virus model is "wrong" and I'm not sure it's actually useful. The model of a "virus" is a particle containing DNA or RNA wrapped in a protein coat, which gains entry to a cell in order to hijack its machinery in order to make copies of itself, which blow up the cell from the inside, killing it. Those copies go on to infect other cells and do the same thing. That's pretty specific. It's a particle of a certain size with a very specific mode of operation.
Here's how I think about this issue: NAV crew has some serious critiques of the METHODOLOGY of virology. If we ask the very simple question - HOW do you know a particular virus exists? - virologists will tell you one or more of three very specific things:
1) we "isolated" it - which does not mean they separated it from all other particles which would allow them to characterize, photograph, and sequence the DNA/RNA of said particles in order to test their theory. It means that they took a sample from a human and added it to usually diseased monkey kidney cells, which were then starved of nutrients and dosed with kidney-toxic antibiotics, and when the cells start to die, they point and say, "see, the cells die because of the virus" but they don't bother to do a control experiment with every step except the actual human sample. So how exactly do they know what is killing those cells? I don't know. I can't find anyone who can really defend this method or respond to the specific critique, other than "a virus needs a cell to replicate." Okay, but that is just the part where it's making copies, does the virus exist outside of the cell? It would have to according to their model because how else does the "virus" pass between cells and between people?
2) we took pictures - but again, the process involved in taking those pictures is to put the results of step one through further insults with alcohol, chemicals and resin, to dry it out then form it into a block, slice it really thin and then bombard it with electrons. What they're taking a picture of is clearly dead, but if they haven't separated out the specific particle they are claiming is a virus before taking a picture (like, ever) how the heck do they know what a "virus" particle even looks like? They just look for something they think fits the bill and add an arrow. How do they know what that specific arrow is pointing at? The result of the METHOD of taking those pictures seems very destructive and likely doesn't represent what actually happens to live tissue inside a body. Again, I can't find a decent rebuttal to a logical critique.
3) we have the genome sequenced - but again, the METHOD of puting the results of step one in a blender to then take out millions of tiny pieces of genetic code and use a computer program to splice them back together. But again, if they've never separated out the particles and sequenced them whole, what the heck is the computer program constructing? And how do they know which particles are from a "virus" versus the rest of whatever the human coughed up and whatever else is in the soup?
Now, if these are invalid critiques, why are they invalid? Why won't anyone address them? What questions should I be asking? Most of the defenders of virology don't even bother to understand these issues at all, I think because of the militant wing of team NAV that makes asking basic questions seem like crazy talk.
The whole question of whether any disease can be passed between humans has logical critiques as well, but it's so ingrained in the paradigm, most people can't even think outside of it in order to genuinely question it. It's a really basic assumption that appears to be unquestionable. And I don't think any assumptions are beyond question.