You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Mysterious viruses and how to find them? An exclusive with Veeru - the Virus facing existential crisis.

in StemSocial2 months ago

I have a fundamental problem with theories that oppose the germ theory of disease. This is that the germ theory of disease is what I have observed all my life in the natural environment. It is simply predation. Big fish eat little fish, but extrapolated such that groups of little fish eat big fish.

Predation is clearly obvious, and no one credibly contests it. It is also plainly obvious that groups of small creatures prey on larger creatures, and even solitary small creatures prey on larger creatures, although such predation is called parasitism. Fleas, mosquitoes, leeches, and all manner of small organisms make a living by consuming parts of larger creatures without killing them outright to do so, and this is the difference between parasitism and predation.

When a lion eats you, it kills you outright. When a mosquito eats you, you generally live through being eaten because the mosquito eats so little.

I am absolutely confident that creatures smaller than fleas and leeches live and make a living eating larger creatures, because the difference in size between a leech and a bacteria does not materially change the mechanism of predation such that bacteria cannot do so.

I find any argument against such obvious parasitism completely irrational, and unsupported by evidence whatsoever.

When confronted with the concept of viruses, which are not living things at all, but simply RNA or DNA mechanisms, the mechanism of contagion is very different, because we aren't talking about living things, but what are essentially chemicals.

Biochemistry reveals myriad mechanisms that range in complexity from quite simple to incomprehensibly complex, and that latter extreme is where we find viruses. However, viruses are not the only biochemicals that are so complex, and myriad hormonal and other processes have naturally arisen over ~4B years of evolution that are also similarly complex. Some of the extraordinary complexity of biological systems remains quite difficult to characterize and understand, including epigenetics, cancer, and hormones.

When we are confronted with such complexity that surpasses our ability to observe and characterize, we must necessarily resort to obscure and complex mechanisms of observation, and undertake processes of hypothesis and experiment to ascertain objective reality and form rational theories supported by empirical evidence. We cannot hold hormones in our hands and observe them in their intricate dance of biological function, and neither can we do so with viruses.

That does not make viruses fake, anymore than it makes hormones fake, and it greatly increases the difficulty of understanding and characterizing them. That difficulty also prevents many people from attaining to rational understanding of biochemistry, because they lack the ability to rationally understand very complex things, either due to their educational background, or innate inability to undertake such education.

As Dunning Kruger asserts, most people believe themselves more competent than they are, and this includes myself, as I have recently proved in my correspondence with @lemouth regarding physics. I am not a physicist, and it took him weeks to gently allow me to establish that fact to my satisfaction, an admirable achievement in my estimation.

I am neither a biochemist, and lack the specific expertise to rationally consider virology, and this is true of almost the entire population of the world, and I note Dr. Kaufman himself acknowledges. Therefore I do not claim to know that this or that virus exists, nor does not.

I do understand the mechanism by which complex biochemical interactions occur, and this does not exclude parasitic mechanisms, such as viruses, and also includes many other mechanisms, such as jumping genes, which I have not personally undertaken to verify as actual and real. I note that such things are rationally possible, and leave my judgment unfixed, because I am incompetent to make judgments on such matters and I know it.

Contagion theory is absolutely provable from observations I have made myself, at scales I can observe. I have personally been eaten by fleas, leeches, and mosquitoes, and know damn well my parts have been converted into baby fleas, leeches, and mosquitoes, confirming that at scales observable with the naked eye, contagion theory is fact. I have personally observed bears, eagles, and my family eating salmon, and am personally the result of such contagion at a higher trophic level.

I have also seen microscopic evidence of bacteria doing the exact same thing, and am convinced that at every trophic level, biological life undertakes to consume living things and reproduce. While I am not a mechanic, I am familiar with mechanical forms of reproduction that reproduce non-living things, such as factories and assembly lines, and I am equally confident that similar processes are undertaken at every trophic level, including molecular, which is the range at which biochemical processes occur.

I do not agree that terrain theory disproves virology, or the many arguments made by people incapable of understanding biochemistry disprove anything. I am incompetent to make such assertions, and I am ok with that. I am confident that a great many people fail to acknowledge they are incompetent to make such judgments and do make them.

This leads to my fundamental disagreement with making such claims on social media, because it is absolutely certain that doing so will lead to gaining believers that are incompetent to understand or judge the truth of the matter, because of Dunning Kruger absolutely being fact, as I have just proved myself, about myself, only last week. Doing that poisons the well of dissent that I am capable of, by restricting myself to facts and information I am competent to understand, such as that the jabs have caused more reported deaths than all other vaccines in the history of VAERS combined.

There are lots of very good and easy to understand facts that enable rational people to make judgments regarding covid, the jabs, and the policies of governments that prove we are being lied to and harmed by those means. Poisoning the well prevents humanity from maximizing our effective resistance to what is obviously a global imposition of totalitarian tyranny, by confusing our understanding of the things we are ubiquitously competent to understand, such as fraud, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

I stick to those subjects in my posts, while seeking more information I am competent to understand regarding subjects I do not have the education to make such judgments about. I am educating myself by making such inquiries of specialists, as I have done here. While I did not get an answer, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and I will continue to seek information as necessary before I make judgments.

Thanks!

Sort:  

I agree that I lack the technical background to form an unambiguous opinion on the subject of virology. You got hung up on my headline and I see that you think that such statements are rather counterproductive to what people have recognised as beyond doubt. The question of whether one believes in contagion or not is a stylistic device of exaggeration, nevertheless I clarify further on how I arrived at such a formulation and what fundamental views underlie it.

Personal perception has limits and so does what one thinks one has observed in oneself and others - especially in retrospect and under the influence of the last two years, I can say that I have lost indifference in how I view the issue of contagion. It is now rather distorted by events and I can only say that I currently have a completely different habit of observation than I had all those years ago. I am in doubt and I think it is doubt that must not lose its justification in any case.

Leaving aside the provocation caused by the statement "to believe or not to believe in contagion", I would think that every serious scientist always leaves room for doubt and remains open to further discussion. As long as it comes from people whom he trusts to have this doubt. I agree with you there. That's why I quoted the paper from the Max Planck Institute.

My post and many others refer to a subsequent context, when it comes to deciding or having to decide questions that are basically undecidable for one personally, precisely because one has no professional expertise in this area. These are therefore questions of conscience and self-reference that everyone answers subjectively (of course, it would be desirable if everyone did so on the basis of sources that offer a halfway rational foundation for this). But that is not the reality, I hardly believe that anyone takes the trouble, or even has the time, to deal with scientific papers in depth and breadth.

Ultimately, what is a jumping off point for me, is that subjective, even irrational decisions a person makes should not be taken away from them as invalid, as such irrationality occurs in all of us (often even occurs unconsciously). From experience, I can say that it is pointless to hold this against someone if there is a lack of consciousness to do so.

However, those who remain on the surface and only take offence at exaggeration or provocation without taking the wider context into account are not serious interlocutors for me either (as I have experienced in various conversations).

Where I see myself as an expert in a field (in which I have many years of theoretical and practical work behind me), it is a case of mutual respect how much space I give my counterpart who, for example, takes a different (in my eyes irrational) view to my expert statements or won views) that let me come to see where his doubt or even anger comes from.

Have you ever been surprised, in a positive sense, by the opening of the space beyond expertise, for example, by someone you did not expect?

The art of asking questions, the gift of gaining the interest of someone who is initially irrational, stupid or otherwise emotionally aroused, seems to me to be underdeveloped also in online debates. It seems to be covered by the much more dominant habit of mutually disagreeing with what one says either from one's expertise or what one says coming from one's conscience, one can hardly be played off against the other. When it comes to winning and the competition of "who has the better arguments", there is hardly any chance of parting respectfully.

The expert will find this much more difficult, because he considers himself to be the one who knows more, doesn't he? The non-expert, however, can be the greatest teacher if he is given the space to ask questions and is listened to. In my professional field, I have been surprised by people who have made clever and remarkable statements (also and precisely because they were not experts) when I was able to get down from my occasional high horse.

For me, the unusual nature of "stupid questions" or the provocation in the formulation is a point that throws a spanner in the works of habitual thinking.

It really depends on who you talk to, right? Respect is something which builts itself over time, when one realizes that you have a person in front of you, you can actually talk to.

Now, I will not talk the subject from a point of view ("do viruses objectively exist?") where I put myself above an expert but I still take liberation to explain where I come from and why I have questions. If my post did not do this for you, for example, I can't help it. But I am fine with you.

In the wider context you have graced me with here, I find much to agree with. Particularly this.

"...it is doubt that must not lose its justification in any case."

That is the place I try to live in, and why I was led to reply as I did, noting I exemplified Dunning Kruger and that I needed to doubt my own competence and belief in my understanding.

"Have you ever been surprised, in a positive sense, by the opening of the space beyond expertise, for example, by someone you did not expect?"

Very much so. I confess it is my experience at the moment, as I have grossly misunderstood your initial comment regarding unbelief in the contagion theory, and expected an explication of terrain theory.

Instead I find compassion in it's place. I find that extraordinary, and very, very refreshing.

Thank you for that.

I thank you, too. I very much appreciate your response. Happy to receive back from you what you've found refreshing.

expected an explication of terrain theory.

What do you mean by that?

A lot of people ascribe to what they refer to as Terrain Theory, which explains away observations of what virologists say are viruses as exosomes, or expulsions of the contents of dying distressed cells.