Is there such a thing as biological viruses?
in Science

Akhenaten · May 2019

1. There are no such things as biological viruses.
2. There is no such thing as herd immunity.
3. There is no such thing as a contagious disease.

There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. All humans are allergic to grass related products. This includes - sugar, grain, dairy and alcohol.

AmericanFurryBoy · May 2019

@Akhenaten

ITS TURNING THE FRICKEN FROGS GAY

MayCaesar · May 2019

1. You can go to any biological laboratory at any public university and take a look at viruses in a microscope first-hand.
2. Herd immunity is a simple consequence of statistics. Similar to how the larger the society is, the less likely you are to be killed by a given criminal, since the criminal has more targets to choose from.
3. Have you never had a situation at school or work when someone sick showed up, and soon a few more people got sick? Do you think this is a pure coincidence somehow happening over and over again?

Vitamin deficiency is not a disease at all. And I personally am not allergic to any of the products you mentioned.

How did you come up with all these strange opinions?

Akhenaten · May 2019

@AmericanFurryBoy

1. Have you ever been to a biological laboratory and looked into an electron microscope or are you just assuming that you can? I have worked in a biological laboratory and I never saw any viruses.

2. Herd immunity implies that disease is contagious which it isn't. I am protected against all disease because I know what causes disease and I can avoid it. The medical system supplies false information about diseases because they need to make money from disease and they can't do that if everybody is healthy. The agricultural revolution is what caused disease to begin. Agricultural products like grain, sugar, dairy and fat all cause inflammation and blockages throughout the body. leaky gut syndrome allows gut bacteria to enter the blood supply which is the cause of most disease.

3. People where I work get sick randomly and never more than one person at a time usually. My family members all get sick occasionally because they don't eat a Paleo diet like me. I never get sick, even when in close contact with people who are sick and are constantly coughing and sneezing.

Vitamin deficiency is not a disease at all. And I personally am not allergic to any of the products you mentioned.

How did you come up with all these strange opinions?

All humans are allergic to grass related products whether you are aware of it or not. The common cold, headaches and all other diseases are just variations of grass allergies.

These opinions are not strange. Most naturopathic doctors apply these principles.

Reference - Dr Loren Cordain Phd

MayCaesar · May 2019

@Akhenaten

1. So have I, and yes I have.

2. No, it does not. It only assumes a very basic notion from probability theory that the more options there are, the less probably each option is to occur, all other things being equal.

3. I never get sick either because of my naturally strong immune system and a healthy lifestyle. But me and you are not representative of the entire population.

I have never had any of the symptoms you described in response to grass-based products.

Naturopathy is a pseudo-science, and if that is what you use as the basis for your arguments, then we really will not be able to have a productive discussion.

Finally, I googled that Prof. Cordain and have not found anything in his writings that would suggest that he agrees with any of the claims you have made. He seems to specialise on researching healthy diets and uses scientifically valid theories in support of his arguments. It would surprise me if he took naturopathy seriously.

Akhenaten · May 2019

You you tell me what the procedure is for preparing a virus for photographing. Then, after you do that, I can point out, item by item, why it is impossible.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

We debated this, at great length, on two different websites. I'm not doing this again. You're flagrantly wrong, and yet you wield your extremely limited expertise as though it invalidates over a century of scientific research.

Akhenaten · May 2019

I didn't request to debate this subject with you. You can go away now, annoying person.

AmericanFurryBoy · May 2019

@Akhenaten
I was making a joke chiiiillll

Akhenaten · May 2019

@MayCaesar

Quote - "I have never had any of the symptoms you described in response to grass-based products."

Reply - So, you have never visited a doctor or a dentist for anything and never taken any medication of any description, is that what you are saying?

MayCaesar · May 2019

@Akhenaten

Have not been to any doctor that is not a dentist in nearly 10 years. My dental problems go way back, and it is mostly about repairing the damage done in the past. Not taking any medications either.

My diet involves a lot of grains, dairy and fruits (that contain a lot of sugar). I also really like drinking coca-cola: I know that it is bad for me, but I absolutely love the taste. Not big on alcohol, but cannot say that I absolutely never drink it; in fact, I am sipping wine just as I am typing this comment.

Where are the expected symptoms?

Akhenaten · May 2019

If you give me a complete list of your diet, then I can see how you avoided illness for so long. What type of grains are you eating? What type of dairy are you eating/drinking.

MayCaesar · May 2019

@Akhenaten

Why do you suddenly need these details, after having made a series of sweeping claims about "sugar, grain, dairy and alcohol"? Are you now suddenly having doubts and suspicions that, perhaps, not all of those products are so dangerous for humans?

I am not going to give you any "complete lists". Suffice to say that I get bored eating the same food for long, so I eat regularly, pretty much, all kinds of sugars, grains and dairies you can think of. Never had any issues.

Akhenaten · May 2019

Ah, ha. So you must have some connection to the food manufacturing or pharmaceutical industries because you are trying to protect them.

MayCaesar · May 2019

@Akhenaten

Protect by being happy for not having been sick for nearly 10 years once? Your narrative is getting more and more desperate, my friend. You do not like it that your theory does not hold up upon the slightest scrutiny, so you switch the gears and go after your critics instead.

You do not impress me.

Akhenaten · May 2019

@MayCaesar

Can you defend the T4 virus phage? Here is a video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFXuxGuT7H8

Note - A definition of a virus is that it is completely dead until it enters a cell then it comes alive.
Note - The T4 phage makes a series of complex manoeuvres which the NASA moon lander would not be able to achieve due to lack of gravity and turbulent blood flow.
Note - The NASA moon lander needs a complex computer guidance system, retractable legs, hydraulic system, electrical sensors, stabilisers, multiple small jets, gyroscopes and radar systems.
Note - Does a virus by definition have any of these?
Answer - None.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

A virus is not considered to be alive, regardless of where it is, though there is some debate over that. If it is alive, then it's alive both inside and outside of a cell. It's simply active inside the cell and inactive outside, like a bacterial spore. If it's not alive, then it remains not alive in both locations, and merely functions like a machine inside a cell and ceases to function outside due to a lack of stimuli.

I'm not clear on why an organism (or, as the case may be, a machine-like entity) could not evolve beyond the level of available human technology. This is not the only example of an organism evolving traits that are better than anything humans can design. I don't see why natural evolution cannot outstrip human engineering feats. If you want to get into the complex molecular biology of how a T4 bacteriophage finds a cell, lands on said cell, injects its genetic material, and reproduces itself in the host, I can provide that. I've got 30 minutes and a sufficient understanding of viral mechanisms, and I can find a few articles that show pictures of the whole process from start to finish and explain it in far more detail.

However, I'm guessing that's not what you're looking for. You almost certainly posted this because you feel it's self-evident: this organism cannot exist because it doesn't meet basic logical criteria. Let's forget about the fact that what you're using as criteria are entirely flawed, and let's forget about all the evidence that proves they don't match reality. Landing on a bacterium is not like landing on the moon, and nano-scale structures will function differently from macro-scale machines. Not that you care, though.

Akhenaten · May 2019

It's not only the mechanics of viruses that is question. There is also no logical sequence of events which can support their existence. But, why even bother to consider viruses as being the cause of disease when a far more logical explanation is freely available? Also, we must consider the timing of their discovery which was right after it was discovered that bacteria didn't cause disease. Thus, in order to justify the existence of a large medical system which heavily relies on the existence of invisible bugs, they needed to find an even smaller and more elusive bug which nobody could question because you apparently need specialised equipment like an electron microscope to see them. Thus, the general public will never have access to such equipment so the secret of their non-existence shall remain a secret. But, unfortunately, the medical system didn't predict the invention of a thing called 'the internet' which would one day expose this secret.

Quote - "Landing on a bacterium is not like landing on the moon, and nano-scale structures will function differently from macro-scale machines. Not that you care, though."

Assumption piled onto another assumption piled onto a preconceived idea (another assumption).
You have built a house of cards which has no glue (logic) to hold it together.
Note - The idea of a virus (not bacterium) landing on a cell is just an assumption which nobody has ever witnessed. Yet, you are discussing it like it is a known fact.
Then, I almost thought you were going to provide evidence but you somehow talked your way out of it. But, it's my fault, of cause.
Note - Attack is always better than defence. You keep attacking my position while not even bothering to defend your own position. That is because you already know that your position is hopeless and indefensible.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

I'm sorry, who's assuming? You say there is no logical sequence of events that can support their existence. I'm not sure what you mean by that because I'm not sure what logic you're functioning with (if any). I'll wait for you to explain this, and instead present you with the clear evidence that supports it. There is no lack of electron microscopy images of bacteriophages, but I'll only present a few because, let's face it, you won't believe they're real.

https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/249770/view/tem-of-t4-bacteriophage-infecting-e-coli
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/tem-of-single-t4-bacteriophage-m-wurtzbiozentrum-university-of-basel-.html
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6148/833/F1

I'm not sure how you're going to go about explaining how these images can exist without these viruses actually existing, so I'm just going to assume that you're going to say they're Photoshopped or doctored. So, let's assume for the time being that they are. If I wanted to, I could take one of these phage-infected bacterial cultures, lyse the bacteria, spin out the viral particles, and add them at a series of dilutions to plates containing only the bacteria that they can infect. At the right concentration, after 48 hours of incubation, I will see plaques (areas where the bacteria has been lysed) form on the plate and expand into little circles that, given enough time, will encompass the full plate. At higher concentrations, all of the bacteria will be lysed. How do you explain this result if there is not something infecting the bacteria directly? A toxin would not produce expanding zones like this, and the bacteria alone grow happily.

But, hey, let's assume even that is flawed. How else can we assess the presence of a bacteriophage? Well, we can look at its genome, a genome only found within samples that are experiencing this kind of lysis. I can take that DNA or RNA, purify it, and sequence from it. I can take those same sequences, plug them into a program on my computer, and find that they likely are used to translate proteins that the virus needs for replication and packaging. I can then search for those very proteins via a protein gel, or mass spectrometry, or any number of other methods available to researchers, and find it. I can test those proteins to see how they function, and regenerate viral capsids simply by expressing that single protein within a single cell. What's more, I can regenerate the DNA or RNA sequence, express it in a circular piece of DNA called a plasmid that I transform into my bacterium, and see it generate the exact same infection. Now, how do you explain all this if the cause is not viral?

You talk about "a far more logical explanation" being "freely available", though none of what you've suggested to date explains any of this. For you, the presence of the bacteriophage DNA/RNA in every single one of these infections, the presence of the proteins generated from those genomes, and the continual reproduction of that infection is all negligible. Here's the problem: a theory is only as good as its ability to cover everything we're seeing. You can't just exclude data and make a claim that your explanation better fits the remaining data (though I don't see how it does that, anyway). A theory must include all of the available evidence, and yours ignores vast swaths of it. Claims like "it was discovered that bacteria didn't cause disease" are similarly unfounded and even easier to disprove. If you want to believe that there's a vast conspiracy underpinning all these discoveries, I guess that's your prerogative, but you have to make a great deal more assumptions for that to be true, not to mention exclude available evidence.

billbatard · May 2019

@Akhenaten is this a joke are you a scientist? shut up and obey your better peasant

billbatard · May 2019

@Akhenaten So how many times you momma drop you on yo dumb azz hed?

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame

Thanks for the pretty pictures.
by Dr Stefan Lanka - virologist
"The "bacteriophages" , correctly defined as incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria, have been scientifically isolated, while the supposed pathogenic viruses have never been observed in humans or animals or in their body fluids and have never been isolated and subsequently biochemically analysed."

http://www.shotsoftruth.com/

Here are some pictures of ground up fetal spinal cord that Jonas Salk used to pass off as virus.
The articles demonstrate the devious techniques used by researchers in disguising their deceptions.
1. Using photos of alternate sources.
2. Changing the terminology of dictionary definitions.
3. Saying that the virus is alive when an electron microscope can only photo dead and preserved objects.

Quote - "How do you explain this result if there is not something infecting the bacteria directly? A toxin would not produce expanding zones like this, and the bacteria alone grow happily."

Similar to the tobacco 'virus' experiment in the above reference. You inadvertently carried the toxic material into the healthy plants which caused them to die.

Quote - "I can then search for those very proteins via a protein gel, or mass spectrometry, or any number of other methods available to researchers, and find it. I can test those proteins to see how they function, and regenerate viral capsids simply by expressing that single protein within a single cell. What's more, I can regenerate the DNA or RNA sequence, express it in a circular piece of DNA called a plasmid that I transform into my bacterium, and see it generate the exact same infection. Now, how do you explain all this if the cause is not viral?"

Reply - You should be able to get a job on the next Jurassic Park movie with an explanation like that. lol
Sorry, it's all just fantasy land stuff.

Still haven't seen any logical explanation of how viruses can penetrate through skin and digestive system.
Still haven't seen any logical explanation of how bacteriophages can find and locate bacteria.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

So, again, your response comes down to "humans can't do it, so nature can't, either." Not very convincing. The capacity of humans to engineer everything nature has already done is not great. We have a long history of taking inspiration from nature [https://www.nationalgeographic.org/activity/engineering-inspirations-nature/], but when we don't understand some of the finer details, it's unsurprising that we can't figure out how to make something that works on a micro scale work on a macro scale. For all your pointing to "logic" as a slam against bacteriophages being real, you haven't really shown how they're illogical. All you've done is state that we can't emulate them sufficiently. As for your explanation for what those photographs are... seriously? Fungal cells are eukaryotic, meaning that they are all larger than any bacterial cell. Two of those pictures show bacteriophage attached to a bacterial cell, and they are quite a bit smaller than the cell. Fungal cells, as depicted in this picture, are much bigger than a bacterial cell and usually come in branched structures called hyphae.

http://microbialfoods.org/using-microscopy-to-monitor-artisan-fermentations/

Maybe this article does show an example of a poorly-taken electron micrograph. I'm not defending every single piece of evidence supporting viruses here, only the evidence in these pictures. So far, your responses have been "that's impossible" and "it's a fungus," the former of which ignores the basic reality that nature can build some things better than we can, and the latter of which is egregiously false.

Your responses to my other evidence just miss the mark completely. First off, this is infecting bacteria, not healthy plants. Second, if this was a toxin as you suggest, why is it a toxin that can get into one cell, multiply, and spread to the cells around them? That's the only way you could explain the increasing sizes of these zones because a toxin has a defined limit of effectiveness. It has no mechanisms to spread itself, no means to reach neighboring cells. Where, then, does your magic toxin get this ability? Third, if I scrape a portion of one of these cleared zones, called a plaque, off the plate, I see a lot of phage when I look at this under TEM. I can extract DNA/RNA and protein from that suspension and find the phage. So, tell me: if I were to do the same looking for a toxin, would I find the toxin? And if so, where is your evidence? None of this is fantasy land. It's what I do in the lab every day, what labs around the world do every day. If you want to invalidate the existence of the means we use to detect specific proteins (often using antibodies), nucleic acids (using complementary sequences, often with radiolabeled nucleotides incorporated), and to generate viral clones via plasmids (I can cite dozens of examples of this, including my own work), then cite me something wrong with these as explanatory tools. Tell me why we can't do them. Sorry, but your quote from one virologist who clearly has his own agenda is not a response to every molecular technique available.

Viruses often get in through cuts in the skin, but they also get in through easy entry points like the eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and urinary tract. They can also hitch a ride in the digestive system via much the same means as you've been citing in our other discussion: breaking down barriers between the gut and the bloodstream.

Bacteriophages don't have to "find and locate bacteria." They're relatively stable in their environments, and as bacteria are relatively common in those same environments (in every environment, really), they are bound to come into contact. This doesn't have to happen often, and the degree to which these viruses reproduce make the most of every encounter. They are, however, selective of which bacteria they can infect, and those are based on signaling proteins found on the surface of the bacterium.

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame

Well, for a start; I changed my post from fungus to mini spores of bacteria after finding a more accurate answer to what they really are. (See last post update.)
You didn't address the mini spore statement.
When a host becomes nutrient poor the bacteria can change its state to become spore producing. (Bacillus and Clostridium) or endospores.
These spores can be misinterpreted as viruses. They are not viruses but are spores of bacterium. They can last for thousands of years.
Note - A bad diet causes their formation.

https://micro.cornell.edu/research/epulopiscium/bacterial-endospores/

https://mmbr.asm.org/content/75/4/583

Extract from text -
Contemporary studies have revealed that fungi and bacteria often form physically and metabolically interdependent consortia that harbour properties distinct from those of their single components.
Thus, your assertion that fungi are irrelevant is itself irrelevant.

Quote - " Bacteriophages don't have to "find and locate bacteria."

Reply - You are right! But.......... it is because they are produced by the bacteria itself. Thus, they don't have to find the bacteria because the bacteria is just producing spores which look like they might be viruses.
Now, we don't need to drum up any illogical nonsense about how these mosquito looking things can manoeuvre themselves in a manner that a space shuttle could never achieve.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

I would commend you for the change, but your new theory still has a few problems.

First and foremost, the size of a bacterial spore is still far too large. The page below shows the scale differences between a bacterium and a virus, with the phage being smaller than 100 nm and bacteria ranging from 1 um to 10 um.

https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookCELL2.html

So, let's go with the smallest possible one on the scale (Bacillus and Clostridium are actually quite large compared to the others, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). Now, this page contains several examples of sporulating species of both Bacillus and Clostridia.

http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~gkaiser/SoftChalk%20BIOL%20230/Prokaryotic%20Cell%20Anatomy/endospores/endospores/endospores_print.html

Notice anything about the sizes of those spores? They're about half as large as the cells themselves. That sets them at at least 500 nm. If you were correct that these images depicted those spores crowding around a cell (I'll come back to that), then their scale should be similar to that of the cell itself. That is obviously not the case - these particles are much too small to compare with the size of the bacterium they are surrounding.

Second, your theory only makes sense if the bacterium we're seeing is a Bacillus or Clostridium species. Did you happen to note which bacterium was being infected in those three pictures I posted? Yeah, that's E. coli. E. coli doesn't produce spores, so these spores would somehow have had to migrate to an entirely separate and unrelated cell and crowd around it in this specific orientation. For someone who's confounded by the thought of bacteriophage locating bacterial cells, I'm surprised you would be fine with this as an explanation.

Third, and this is a problem in general with your argument, the bacteriophage looks nothing like a spore. Here's how a spore looks under an electron microscope:

http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~gkaiser/SoftChalk%20BIOL%20230/Prokaryotic%20Cell%20Anatomy/endospores/endospores/Bacillus_sterothermophilus_spore_MicrobeZoo.jpg

Note the thick spore coat and the huge glob of cellular material in the middle. If it didn't have all this, then a) it wouldn't be able to survive in dangerous environments and b) it wouldn't be able to germinate and return to its vegetative form. The pictures I posted do not have this spore coat and they do not have the glob of cellular material on the inside. Note that this is also round, whereas the bacteriophage are hexagonal. Finally, note that the spores don't have any complex structures coming off of them. The bacteriophage has a long tail region with tail fibers attached, all of which can be seen in every single photo. None of that exists in bacterial or fungal spores.

Akhenaten · May 2019

Virus sizes

https://viralzone.expasy.org/5216

Ebolavirus = 970 nm
bacteria spore = 0.8 - 1.2 micron

Note - These two are about the same size. viruses 20 nm - 970 nm. Note - This large size difference suggests somebody made a mistake. Imagine one human, being 40 times larger than another human.
Thus, in terms of species consistency. There is none. Thus, one can only conclude that the concept of a virus is a total nonsense.

Note - Most of the so called 'viruses' are asymmetrical which is a violation of the basic principles of all living things which is symmetry.
Note - The so called 'viruses' are all surrounded by antibodies which suggests that they are just random pieces of cell debris which have been encircled by antibodies.
Note - Where have those mosquito like legs gone to? I can only see one long strand attaching to each outer cell.

Quote - "The bacteriophage has a long tail region with tail fibers attached, all of which can be seen in every single photo. None of that exists in bacterial or fungal spores."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoospore

Looks like you are wrong again. Bacterial spores do have a flagella.

Still have heard any response to the detective analogy. A detective goes to a crime scene and finds a corpse with a half eaten bowl of food on the table. Now, would the detective assume that the person died of natural causes or would they investigate to see if the food was poisonous?
Now, most doctors see people every day and assume that the problem that most people have is germs and not diet. Now, why do doctors always dismiss this obvious possibility?
Is it because there is no money to be made from finding a dietary cause of disease?
Yes! Of course it is.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

Alright, let's talk virus sizes.

The reason the Ebola virus is so large is because it a) has an envelope, b) is a flexious rod, meaning it has a lot of length but not width, and c) because it stores a number of proteins within the viral capsid. I didn't say viruses don't get up to the size of bacteria (in fact, I can think of several that are larger than the some of the smallest bacteria). I said that bacteriophage are significantly smaller. What is in those images that I showed you is clearly not the Ebola virus, which looks like this:

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/53ea34a569bedd8f076a5f23-1200-900/ebola-virus-11.jpg

That's unsurprising because the Ebola virus doesn't infect bacteria, so it wouldn't be crowding around a bacterial cell. When you say that "somebody made a mistake" with the sizes of the virus... that's... wow. First off, not every virus requires the same amount of protein or complex structures within or around its viral capsid. A virus infecting a human cell requires a lot more than a bacteriophage because a human cell is a lot more complex than a bacterial cell. Second, viruses are no more related to each other than humans are to other animals. This is like saying that all mammals should be the same size, otherwise someone made a mistake. A virus species, just like the human species, is a relatively consistent size and structure. The Polio virus and the Ebola virus are not closely related, ergo they are very different sizes.

Actually, most viruses are perfectly symmetrical, more so than most animals. I don't see where you're getting that assertion. Similarly, I don't know where you're getting this idea that viruses "are all surrounded by antibodies", but if they are, then I don't understand why that makes them nothing but cell debris (which, again, would tend to be far larger and less uniform than the images I presented). That just means there's an immune response to the virus. All of those images show the legs. I don't know why you're having such a hard time finding them. If you want, I can draw you bright red arrows showing exactly where they are.

As for the zoospore... it's amazing how you keep doing this. First, did you happen to note what organisms produce those zoospores? They're fungi. So, now you're assuming that fungi have contaminated this bacterial sample and produced zoospores which just so happened to find and latch onto the outside of an E. coli cell in this peculiar orientation. Yep, that makes so much sense. Second, again, these are fungi. You know what size a zoospore is? There's a nice enlarged picture available here:

http://archive.bio.ed.ac.uk/jdeacon/microbes/zoospore.htm

You might note that little 0.5 um bar down at the bottom. These are huge. They dwarf many bacterial cells. There is literally no way that many of these could crowd around an E. coli cell in the orientation you see in those pictures. Third, there's also a SEM image in that same link. Notice how those flagella look, like they're just two long, flexious rods coming out of a sac-like object? Does that look anything at all like the bacteriophages in those pictures I presented? Not in the slightest. Having flagella doesn't mean they bear any kind of resemblance to a bacteriophage.

Your detective analogy is, frankly, absurd. Again, we have plenty of evidence that bacteriophage exist. Your entire explanation assumes that all of this, every single bit of evidence, is either doctored or non-existent. The RNA/DNA that we find in every single infection? The proteins, which assemble into the very specific orientation of the capsid? The spreading plaques that appear on plates when these phage are added to the bacteria they can infect? Our ability to recreate these infections by expressing the bacteriophage genome via a plasmid? You call this "fantasy land stuff" but it's science. Cold, hard, infinitely reproducible science. Where's yours?

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame
The detective analogy accurately reveals the duplicity and deceptions of the medical system.
Do you agree that a good diet will prevent bad bacteria from breeding?
Thus, diet is all important in preventing disease from occurring.

Quote - "Actually, most viruses are perfectly symmetrical, more so than most animals."

Note - It only takes one anomaly to disprove a theory. I have already provided several anomalies.

The T4 bacteriophages are totally illogical nonsense whereas there are T4 Hormones are totally logical and real things.

I don't know where they got these pictures from but I would suggest it has nothing to do with biology and more to do with graphic design.
That's because I am a graphic artist myself and could easily create similar pictures without too much trouble.
The mechanical and geometric structure of these viruses with too many straight lines is a dead give away.
Note - Nature doesn't do straight lines and hexagon shaped boxes with cylinders attached.
It looks like a 5 years attempt at a Lego construction of a mosquito. lol

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

The analogy is grossly inaccurate, no matter how many times you assert it works.

Yes, diet has hugely important effects on your gut microbiota. Here's the problem: your argument presupposes the all-importance of the gut in human disease. Again, not all infectious microbes can survive in the gut, much less propagate and infect a person. All you've been doing is continuously asserting that all damaging microbes come from the gut, and repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make you right.

But I have to quote you here: "It only takes one anomaly to disprove a theory. I have already provided several anomalies."

That's actually not true (I'll get back to whether you've introduced any anomalies shortly). Introducing one anomaly into a theory that is otherwise airtight does not disprove the whole theory. Even if your claims that said anomalies exist are accurate, the reality that the germ theory of disease and the evidence regarding the existence of viruses still stand. A theory - any theory - has to encompass as much of the available evidence as possible. If it fails to fully explain said evidence, then it is a flawed theory, but that doesn't disprove the whole thing. If I managed to find one spot on this planet that did not exhibit normal gravity, it would not disprove the theory of gravity, though it would seriously challenge notions of how gravity works. In a similar sense, if you were somehow able to show that some viruses don't actually exist, that wouldn't disprove the existence of all viruses.

Not that you've done that anyway. At this point, your argument has just devolved to claims of illogic with nothing to support them. I've provided ample evidence for the existence of T4 bacteriophages, which you have largely refused to engage with. If you want to just assert that the images I linked to are photoshopped, then sorry to tell you this, but that's opinion. It's no longer engaging with the evidence, it's mere assertion. Having straight lines does not disprove the existence of an entity in a given image any more than pointing out that ice crystals forming geometric shapes disproves the existence of ice. Nature does this literally all the time. Ice crystals form hexagons because of the way the bonds are structured between water molecules. Hell, bee hives are composed of a lattice of hexagons on a macro scale. Bonds are nothing but straight lines, and particularly at the molecular level, proteins form long, filamentaous structures that are both rigid (i.e. straight) and flexious all the time.

Look, it's clear that you have nothing more to add to this discussion. From the beginning, your sole goal was to poke holes in a theory you thought you understood to be fabricated out of whole cloth, one you clearly didn't understand. I don't know what electron microscopy lab thought to hire you or in what capacity, I don't know what your training is in, and I certainly don't know why you're bothering to waste your time making outrageously inaccurate arguments and claims like those you've been making here. You want to believe in a fantasy world where nothing around you can get you sick? Great! I encourage you to never get a flu shot and hang around crowded college classrooms for a week in December, sitting next to anyone who's sniffling and coughing. See where that gets you.

Akhenaten · May 2019

1. Bacteria size have 10:1 maximum diversity.
Whereas viruses have a 40:1 maximum ratio.
This ratio is evidence that things aren't right logically with viruses.
They don't fit into the pattern of other species and life forms.

Bacteriophages

2. Nature doesn't make complex geometric shapes joined together like crystals.
Note - Crystals are rocks and not living things. They are too mechanical looking; more like a machine than a living organism.
The 'bacteriophage' name suggests that they have bacterial nature and are not viral which is confusing.
Why do they only attack only one particular bacteria? This is another illogical concept. Most bacteria are happy in many different environments and attack many different species.
The similarity of the name bacteriophage T4 is obviously derived from the T4 Hormone Thyroxine.
The biologists have borrowed the functionality of the T4 Hormone and transferred some of it's chemical docking capabilities onto this artificial digital creation called the 'bacteriophage'.
The pictures that you presented as evidence don't show any room for a large group of mosquito like creatures to land in one area.
Their fragile legs would become tangled or tipped over by the presence of many other bacteriophages.
The bacteriophages have no radar system to guide them to the host which makes them illogical entities.
The bacteriophages have no propulsion system to power their landing and manoeuvring.
The photos that you presented have no mosquito legs like the single photo did.
Where did their legs go to?
What was the source of these photos?
What part of the human anatomy were they derived from?
How were these photos prepared?
No information supplied?

3. Some viruses are too big for the supposed functions that they perform.
Thus, if viruses don't have any function when they are in their spore state, then, there is no need to have a huge bulk or size.
Thus, when a bacteria produces a spore, the spore will be much smaller and more compact that the bacteria parent.
The bacteria spores casing will be tough, strong and resistant of heat and chemical damage.
The viral spores, on the other hand, are weak, feeble and incapable of surviving for more than a few seconds once they leave the cell's protection.
Thus, virus spores are illogical nonsense.

Conclusion
We can see in nature that when a plant or a bacteria creates a seed or a spore that the seed or spore is built strong and tough to survive in a hostile environment.
The viral spores or whatever you want to call them are much weaker and have no protection from the environment.
Thus, the concept of a virus is illogical and has no viable sequence of events that can justify their existence.

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame

1. Bacteria size have 10:1 maximum diversity.
Whereas viruses have a 40:1 maximum ratio.
This ratio is evidence that things aren't right logically with viruses.
They don't fit into the pattern of other species and life forms.

Bacteriophages

2. Nature doesn't make complex geometric shapes joined together like crystals.
Note - Crystals are rocks and not living things. They are too mechanical looking; more like a machine than a living organism.
The 'bacteriophage' name suggests that they have bacterial nature and are not viral which is confusing.
Why do they only attack only one particular bacteria? This is another illogical concept. Most bacteria are happy in many different environments and attack many different species.
The similarity of the name bacteriophage T4 is obviously derived from the T4 Hormone Thyroxine.
The biologists have borrowed the functionality of the T4 Hormone and transferred some of it's chemical docking capabilities onto this artificial digital creation called the 'bacteriophage'.
The pictures that you presented as evidence don't show any room for a large group of mosquito like creatures to land in one area.
Their fragile legs would become tangled or tipped over by the presence of many other bacteriophages.
The bacteriophages have no radar system to guide them to the host which makes them illogical entities.
The bacteriophages have no propulsion system to power their landing and manoeuvring.
The photos that you presented have no mosquito legs like the single photo did.
Where did their legs go to?
What was the source of these photos?
What part of the human anatomy were they derived from?
How were these photos prepared?
No information supplied?

3. Some viruses are too big for the supposed functions that they perform.
Thus, if viruses don't have any function when they are in their spore state, then, there is no need to have a huge bulk or size.
Thus, when a bacteria produces a spore, the spore will be much smaller and more compact that the bacteria parent.
The bacteria spores casing will be tough, strong and resistant of heat and chemical damage.
The viral spores, on the other hand, are weak, feeble and incapable of surviving for more than a few seconds once they leave the cell's protection.
Thus, virus spores are illogical nonsense.

Conclusion
We can see in nature that when a plant or a bacteria creates a seed or a spore that the seed or spore is built strong and tough to survive in a hostile environment.
The viral spores or whatever you want to call them are much weaker and have no protection from the environment.
Thus, the concept of a virus is illogical and has no viable sequence of events that can justify their existence.

Akhenaten · May 2019

1. Bacteria size have 10:1 maximum diversity.
Whereas viruses have a 40:1 maximum ratio.
This ratio is evidence that things aren't right logically with viruses.
They don't fit into the pattern of other species and life forms.

Bacteriophages

2. Nature doesn't make complex geometric shapes joined together like crystals.
Note - Crystals are rocks and not living things. They are too mechanical looking; more like a machine than a living organism.
The bacteriophage name suggests that they have bacterial nature and are not viral which is confusing.
Why do they only attack only one particular bacteria? This is another illogical concept. Most bacteria are happy in many different environments and attack many different species.
The similarity of the name bacteriophage T4 is obviously derived from the T4 Hormone Thyroxine.
The biologists have borrowed the functionality of the T4 Hormone and transferred some of it's chemical docking capabilities onto this artificial digital creation called the bacteriophage.
The pictures that you presented as evidence don't show any room for a large group of mosquito like creatures to land in one area.
Their fragile legs would become tangled or tipped over by the presence of many other bacteriophages.
The bacteriophages have no radar system to guide them to the host which makes them illogical entities.
The bacteriophages have no propulsion system to power their landing and manoeuvring.
The photos that you presented have no mosquito legs like the single photo did.
Where did their legs go to?
What was the source of these photos?
What part of the human anatomy were they derived from?
How were these photos prepared?
No information supplied?

3. Some viruses are too big for the supposed functions that they perform.
Thus, if viruses don't have any function when they are in their spore state, then, there is no need to have a huge bulk or size.
Thus, when a bacteria produces a spore, the spore will be much smaller and more compact that the bacteria parent.
The bacteria spores casing will be tough, strong and resistant of heat and chemical damage.
The viral spores, on the other hand, are weak, feeble and incapable of surviving for more than a few seconds once they leave the cell's protection.
Thus, virus spores are illogical nonsense.

Conclusion
We can see in nature that when a plant or a bacteria creates a seed or a spore that the seed or spore is built strong and tough to survive in a hostile environment.
The viral spores or whatever you want to call them are much weaker and have no protection from the environment.
Thus, the concept of a virus is illogical and has no viable sequence of events that can justify their existence.

Akhenaten · May 2019

1. Bacteria size have 10:1 maximum diversity.
Whereas viruses have a 40:1 maximum ratio.
This ratio is evidence that things aren't right logically with viruses.
They don't fit into the pattern of other species and life forms.

Bacteriophages

2. Nature doesn't make complex geometric shapes joined together like crystals.
Note - Crystals are rocks and not living things. They are too mechanical looking; more like a machine than a living organism.
The 'bacteriophage' name suggests that they have bacterial nature and are not viral which is confusing.
Why do they only attack only one particular bacteria? This is another illogical concept. Most bacteria are happy in many different environments and attack many different species.
The similarity of the name bacteriophage T4 is obviously derived from the T4 Hormone Thyroxine.
The biologists have borrowed the functionality of the T4 Hormone and transferred some of it's chemical docking capabilities onto this artificial digital creation called the 'bacteriophage'.
The pictures that you presented as evidence don't show any room for a large group of mosquito like creatures to land in one area.
Their fragile legs would become tangled or tipped over by the presence of many other bacteriophages.
The bacteriophages have no radar system to guide them to the host which makes them illogical entities.
The bacteriophages have no propulsion system to power their landing and manoeuvring.
The photos that you presented have no mosquito legs like the single photo did.
Where did their legs go to?
What was the source of these photos?
What part of the human anatomy were they derived from?
How were these photos prepared?
No information supplied?

3. Some viruses are too big for the supposed functions that they perform.
Thus, if viruses don't have any function when they are in their spore state, then, there is no need to have a huge bulk or size.
Thus, when a bacteria produces a spore, the spore will be much smaller and more compact that the bacteria parent.
The bacteria spores casing will be tough, strong and resistant of heat and chemical damage.
The viral spores, on the other hand, are weak, feeble and incapable of surviving for more than a few seconds once they leave the cell's protection.
Thus, virus spores are illogical nonsense.

Conclusion
We can see in nature that when a plant or a bacteria creates a seed or a spore that the seed or spore is built strong and tough to survive in a hostile environment.
The viral spores or whatever you want to call them are much weaker and have no protection from the environment.
Thus, the concept of a virus is illogical and has no viable sequence of events that can justify their existence.

Akhenaten · May 2019

1. Bacteria size have 10:1 maximum diversity.
Whereas viruses have a 40:1 maximum ratio.
This ratio is evidence that things aren't right logically with viruses.
They don't fit into the pattern of other species and life forms.

Bacteriophages

2. Nature doesn't make complex geometric shapes joined together like crystals.
Note - Crystals are rocks and not living things. They are too mechanical looking; more like a machine than a living organism.
The bacteriophage name suggests that they have bacterial nature and are not viral which is confusing.
Why do they only attack only one particular bacteria? This is another illogical concept. Most bacteria are happy in many different environments and attack many different species.
The similarity of the name bacteriophage T4 is obviously derived from the T4 Hormone Thyroxine.
The biologists have borrowed the functionality of the T4 Hormone and transferred some of it's chemical docking capabilities onto this artificial digital creation called the bacteriophage.
The pictures that you presented as evidence don't show any room for a large group of mosquito like creatures to land in one area.
Their fragile legs would become tangled or tipped over by the presence of many other bacteriophages.
The bacteriophages have no radar system to guide them to the host which makes them illogical entities.
The bacteriophages have no propulsion system to power their landing and manoeuvring.
The photos that you presented have no mosquito legs like the single photo did.
Where did their legs go to?
What was the source of these photos?
What part of the human anatomy were they derived from?
How were these photos prepared?
No information supplied?

3. Some viruses are too big for the supposed functions that they perform.
Thus, if viruses don't have any function when they are in their spore state, then, there is no need to have a huge bulk or size.
Thus, when a bacteria produces a spore, the spore will be much smaller and more compact that the bacteria parent.
The bacteria spores casing will be tough, strong and resistant of heat and chemical damage.
The viral spores, on the other hand, are weak, feeble and incapable of surviving for more than a few seconds once they leave the cell's protection.
Thus, virus spores are illogical nonsense.

Conclusion
We can see in nature that when a plant or a bacteria creates a seed or a spore that the seed or spore is built strong and tough to survive in a hostile environment.
The viral spores or whatever you want to call them are much weaker and have no protection from the environment.
Thus, the concept of a virus is illogical and has no viable sequence of events that can justify their existence.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

1. What... does this even mean? You mean the maximum ranges in sizes of bacteria vs. viruses? I don't see why that ratio is evidence of anything, but it's also wrong. The smallest bacterium is Mycoplasma, which can be as small as 200 nm in length. The largest bacterium, Thiomargarita namibiensis, can range up to 300 um in length. That's a 1500:1 ratio of sizes. Viruses range from the extremely small (Porcine circovirus at 17 nm) to the relatively large at 1000 nm (that's a Pandora virus - they infect amoeba). That's approximately a 60:1 ratio. How, exactly, do either of these numbers affect the logical existence of these organisms?

2. Nature makes plenty of simple and complex geometric shapes. Just because you don't want to acknowledge the complex structures of all manner of chemicals does not mean they don't exist. However, I would not say a bacteriophage is complex, though it's entirely feasible that they're more like machines than living organisms, making them very much akin to crystals.

They only attack one bacteria because they can only package so much information into their genomes. They have to do as much as possible with very little, and that requires some means of targeting in order to land effectively on bacterial cells that can support their reproduction. Not every bacteria has that, so they must be selective. This is entirely logical - humans cannot eat all forms of organic material in the world, so why should bacteriophage eat all forms of bacteria?

Let's break down the word "bacteriophage." The first part is derived from bacteria. The second part is derived from phage. Phage, in Greek, means "to devour." So the word effectively means "to devour bacteria." That seems pretty appropriate for an organism that lyses bacteria for their own replication. The fact that several things are named "T4" doesn't make them equivalent, no matter how much you assert it to be true.

The pictures show very clearly precisely where those structures land on the surface of the bacterium. If you want to ignore the realities of what you're seeing, that's your choice. They are not fragile, and they manage spacing just fine, as you can see in those pictures. They do not need to have a radar system, as I've said now repeatedly, because they can wait to be activated by the right cell. They don't need propulsion, either. You should think of the interactions between bacteriophages and bacteria as being more akin to chemical reactions than a machine landing on the surface of the moon, because that's most of what's happening. Several of the photos, including the ones that show them surrounding the outside of a bacterium, do have the legs. They didn't disappear just because you're having trouble spotting them. The sources for the photos, as well as information regarding their preparation, are in the links if you'd take the time to look for them. They aren't derived from human anatomy because they involve just bacteria and phage.

3. What is "too big" for a virus to perform certain functions? What makes them too big? Explain this to me. Viruses don't have a spore state. They have a state where they are inactive, and a state where they are active. They do not need to get smaller or larger. I don't see how they are "weak, feeble or incapable of surviving for more than a few seconds" - viruses have protein coats as well, and they are fully capable of surviving for long periods of time on a variety of surfaces. I will also point out that, even if they don't survive well outside the cell (and most do), many viruses integrate into their hosts' genome. That means they don't have to survive outside of the cell in order to be successful post-infection.

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame
Quote - "What is "too big" for a virus to perform certain functions? What makes them too big? Explain this to me."

Nature is not wasteful and doesn't create more than what is necessary. The viruses, by definition, have limited functions and don't have internal organs. Thus, they only need a very small space to function. Now, if a virus is the same size as a bacteria, then, logically, something is very wrong here. For example :- They don't need a football stadium space to put in a few proteins. Thus, we can only conclude that they are just manufactured nonsense from the imagination of a desperate scientist who wants to get a Noble Prize.

Quote - "They are not fragile"

Your eyes must be deceiving you. Those thin little legs are 1000 times thinner than a human hair. The slightest wind or blood flow current would be enough to wash them away. Thus, these bacteriophages wouldn't last more than a few seconds in the real world.

Conclusion

The bacteriophages violate the definition of a virus. A virus by definition is not active/alive until it enters the cell. Yet, the animated videos of bacteriophages clearly shows that they are performing complex manoeuvres of orientation, stabilisation, directional travel, identification of host, landing legs first and propulsion. These functions are all performed while the virus is in it's inactive state before entering the bacteria. Thus, they are in violation of the definition of a virus.
Let's face it. The bacteriophage is the only virus of it's type which is an anomaly in itself. All living things have many sub-species and related species which are similar. Yet, the bacteriophage has no similar relative species. Thus, it is completely unique and isolated as a species. This definitely doesn't occur in nature. Note - All bacteria have hundreds of sub-species and related species. Thus, we can only conclude that the bacteriophage is desperate attempt to create a virus which is seen in detail and has a functionality suitable for penetrating a bacterium. Thus, the biological scientists needed to create an artificial virus which could be represented to the cynical public and seen via computer graphics in detail and with animation on how it penetrates a bacterium. Thus, was born this mechanical Frankenstein creature called a bacteriophage.

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

Your fundamental assumption about size is that a virus should not require much in the way of machinery to be effective against its host. For most viruses, that's true: they can introduce their genome alone, and that can be sufficient to produce the necessary proteins to both replicate and package themselves. Here's the problem with your assumption: you assume that the same mechanism is sufficient for every circumstance. It's not that simple. Amoeba are difficult hosts to infect, and require a great deal of protein machinery for a virus to be effective against them. The notion that nature isn't wasteful is mostly correct, but if you provide a host that cannot be infected by more fundamental means, then viruses will evolve to rise to the occasion. They will produce a lot more protein in their hosts, package it in a larger capsid, and move it all onto the next host. Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean that it's unlikely or impossible. If anything, these larger viruses are far more obvious examples of exactly how viruses work, since you don't require an electron microscope to see them.

As for the fragility of a bacteriophage's leg... do you understand what tensile strength is? Because that's rather important here. Having something that is small and thin does not mean that it is fragile, especially not in the context of this interaction. We're talking about a molecular scale interaction, and one with what is essentially a chain of carbon molecules. Carbon fibers are also extremely thin and often very small, but they are extremely resilient. But yes, they do easily get washed away (at least if they're not attached to something that gets washed away with them). Here's the issue: there's usually lots and lots of them around, and even if they get pushed into a new environment, they can often find a host that suits them. You're assuming that they're very environment specific, to the point that they can't survive if they're flushed out of one environment into another. They absolutely can.

Bacteriophage embody the definition of a virus. The interactions between the legs of a bacteriophage and the surface of a bacterium (I don't know where you're getting this nonsense about propulsion and "manouvers") are entirely based in a chemical reaction that occurs upon recognition of the host cell, which means that interaction with the cell (not entry into it) activates the bacteriophage. No one ever said that the sole instance in which a virus can be the slightest bit active is if it enters a cell; the only activities that are limited to within the cell are replication, transcription and translation. And there are plenty of viruses that relate to a bacteriophage - simply because they lack the complex structures of the bacteriophage doesn't mean that they are unrelated.

Look, all you ever end up doing with these is trying to introduce holes into the available information on bacteriophages and claim that, because there's a purported flaw (I haven't seen one yet) in the theory around them, they simply don't exist. You keep saying this, and saying it, over and over again, as though it makes the argument valid. All this despite the fact that the bacteriophage has clearly been depicted in multiple images, that we can find and specifically identify all the proteins and nucleic acids that compose it, and that we can macroscopically see an infection taking place on a plate containing a bacterium that it can specifically infect. You haven't found convenient excuses for any of these beyond saying that they're all made up. In other words, because you find what you claim to be a logical flaw, you're dismissing objective evidence as to their existence. Talk about logical leaps.

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame

3D animation of a bacteriophage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFXuxGuT7H8

Note - How many actions do you see before the virus enters or engages with the bacteria. Thus, your defence of this virus is a total bogus nonsense and endless drivel.

Note - In nature, bacteria only consume dead cells and material. They never, ever attack a living cell.
Thus, we would assume that if viruses existed, then, they too would only invade dead organisms.
Note - A living E.Coli bacterium isn't going to just lie down and allow another bacteria or virus to consume it. It will wriggle and move away before it has a chance to do anything.
Note - The concept of the germ theory of disease relies on the pre-empting attack of a bacteria or virus on a living organism.
This can never occur because bacteria are scavengers of dead material and are not predators of living organisms.
Thus, as stated by Wade Frazier in his online book - The Medical Racket.
The medical system is a male dominated system which treats germs as the enemy and uses aggressive war like terms like kill the germs as a solution to health related problems.
The reality is that all germs are completely harmless organisms when left in their natural environment and are not given factory distilled concentrates like sugar, white flour and pasteurised dairy as a source of nourishment.
These poisonous foods create an unbalanced environment which causes inflammation and blockages throughout the human body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDoqS6QHQw

whiteflame · May 2019

@Akhenaten

Your argument has now devolved into nothing but assertions. It’s impossible, you say, for a bacteriophage to have any activity outside of a cell. Why? Well... because! Yes, a perfect argument, clearly.

Bacteria would just shake off the bacteriophage! Why would they do this when they don’t have nervous systems and therefore would be largely unaware of the foreign invader until it’s too late? Why would they risk the integrity of their own cell wall by grinding themselves up against another, possibly dangerous external entity? Well... because! Another perfect argument!

Bacteria never attack a living cell. Why not? Because! Yes, you’re on a roll with these! It makes just so much sense that a bacteria would never try to take nutrients from an actively dividing cell instead of a cell that is likely punctured, lost most of its nutrients, and cannot produce any new protein, nucleic acids or sugars. Makes perfect sense - all bacteria, including the ones that live inside other living cells, only attack the dead. Brilliant!

And Wade Frazer, who has no apparent medical or research training to his name, is clearly the expert on all things microbiological and therefore entirely capable of making broad claims about the medical field, much like you. Truly, his opinion outweighs literal centuries of research and medicine. You’ve soundly destroyed my argument by presenting an opinion with no support, as you’ve done from the start of this discussion. I don’t know why I’ve even bothered presenting you with silly things like physical evidence when those can be dismissed with a claim that they don’t match some arbitrarily and subjectively established vision of what is “logical” based on personal experiences that exclude much of reality.

Seriously, though, I don’t know why I’m continuing to bother with you. You’re so absurdly wrong in your views that it defies accurate description. If all you want to do is rely on half-arguments presented by non-experts as support for points that lack verifiable evidence, be my guest. I’m done.

Akhenaten · May 2019

@whiteflame

One final coup-de-grace

Scientists Just Discovered That Bacteria Have a Sense of Touch

https://www.sciencealert.com/bacteria-sense-of-touch

Thus, if a bacteriaphage (robotic mosquito lol) landed on them then, they could just shake it off.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Economic signs are improving, but many Americans don't feel the relief

In this Debate

Is there such a thing as biological viruses?
in Science

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Scientists Just Discovered That Bacteria Have a Sense of Touch

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Economic signs are improving, but many Americans don't feel the relief

In this Debate

Is there such a thing as biological viruses?in Science

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Scientists Just Discovered That Bacteria Have a Sense of Touch

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Is there such a thing as biological viruses?
in Science