Viruses: Created, Evolved, or Both?

[Data]

I'm somewhat more conversant on the subject than evolution and I thought this was an interesting question from an atheist vs theist perspective. Did God create viruses or did they evolve. My position is both. God created them and in the microevolutionary sense they evolved.

[A Freeman]

The Resuscitation of Virology
through Nobel Prize Winner john Frankiin Enders

We have explained in several articles in our magazine “WissenschafftPlus” starting with the year 2014 the greater framework of the misguided development of biology and medicine, the untenable dogma of the so-called cell theory, which claimed that the body develops from cells and not from tissues. The cell theory of life, the "cellular pathology”, invented by Rudolf Virchow in 1858, which to date is the exclusive basis for biology and medicine, claims that all disease (as well as all life) originates from a single cell, which is somehow hijacked by a virus, starts to deteriorate and then propagates that virus. Two crucial aspects served as precondition and basis for the current global acceptance of cellular pathology, from which the infectious theory. the genetic, immune and cancer theories have developed.

a. The cell theory was only implemented because Rudolf Virchow suppressed crucial discoveries about tissues. The findings and insights with respect to the structure, function and central importance of tissues in the creation and development of life, which were already known in 1858, comprehensively refute the cell theory and the subsequently derived genetic, immune and cancer theories16.

b. The infection theories were only established as a global dogma through the concrete politics and eugenics of the Third Reich. Before 1933, scientists dared to contradict this theory; after 1933, these critical scientists were silenced.17

In order to work with "viruses” and carryout so-called infectious experiments, before the concept of virology was abandoned in 1952, the “virologists” were forced to dissolve and filtrate “diseased” and putrescent tissue. The concentrated filtrate, so they believed, contained a pathogen, a toxin, which they thought would be constantly produced by the infected cells. Until 1952, a “virus” was defined as a pathogenic poison in the form of a protein, which as an enzyme caused damage in an unknown manner, would cause disease and be transmissible. After 1953, the year in which the alleged DNA in the form an alleged alpha helix was publicly announced, the idea of a virus became a malignant genotype wrapped in proteins. Thus, a paradigm shift took place between 1952 to 1954 regarding the image of a virus.

“Infectious experiments” with animals were carried out with the filtrated fluids from putrescent organisms or from fluids allegedly containing the proteins/enzymes which were supposed to represent the virus. The results were meant to prove that a virus was present and would cause the illness ascribed to it However, what is never mentioned publicly is that the symptoms allegedly caused in human beings by a virus could never be replicated in animal experiments, instead there were always only “similar” symptoms, which they then claimed to be identical with the disease in humans. However, none of this has ever been proven scientifically.

To date, all “infectious experiments” are missing the control experiments, i.e. the proof that the symptoms are not caused by the “treatment” ofthe genetic material in the so-called infectious experiment.

In order to exclude that it was not the fluids of diseased tissue that caused the symptoms, one would have had to do an identical experiment, only with other fluids or with sterilised fluids. However, that has never happened.

Extremely cruel animal experiments are carried out to date – for example in order to prove the transmissibility of measles; during these experiments, monkeys are tied and immobilised in a vacuum chamber with a tube in their nose, and then tortured by scientists who insert the allegedly infected fluids through the tube into the trachea and lungs of the monkeys The exact same damage would be caused by sterile saline solution, sterilised blood, pus or saliva. The induced symptoms, which are only "similar” to measles, are then claimed to be measles.

Since the allegedly infected fluids are pressed through a filter which allegedly filters out bacteria and they are slightly heated, the scientists claim that the suffering and death of the animals in those experiments cannot be caused by bacteria, but rather by smaller “pathogens”, the viruses. The involved scientists ignored the fact already acknowledged at that time that there are extremely more unknown bacteria than known ones, that many bacteria are heat resistant and that they form spores which cannot be filtrated. It is important to mention here that there is no evidence whatsoever that bacteria cause any disease either. They are of course often present in the disease process, like the firemen putting out the fire. Bacteria do not cause disease, but rather they participate in biological meaningful reparation processes. As with viruses, the only so-called evidence for the apparently negative role of bacteria are the horrific animal experiments which are completely meaningless, since all control experiments are missing.


Enders and Polio

Up to the year 1949, the “virologists" cultivated their suspected “viruses” (proteins) by placing a piece of putrescent genetic material, which had been taken from a tissue allegedly infected by a virus, on a slice of “healthy" tissue of the same type. The visible intensification of the putrefaction process, which was transmitted from the “sick" tissue to the “healthy” tissue, was misinterpreted as proliferation and spreading of the virus, of the pathogenic poison. Due to control experiments with healthy tissue carried out for the first time in 1951, the virologists discovered that what they saw were quite normal processes of tissue decay and not a virus that would only be present in “sick” tissue.

Enders “discovered” by chance in 1949 - because he had no fresh “healthy" nerve tissue available - that other types of tissue started to decompose as well if a piece of brain from a person who died of polio was placed on it. Previously, the virologists had believed that every virus could only propagate in the genetic material that it would also damage. For the alleged discovery that “viruses" propagate in other tissues as well, which they don’t damage in live humans, Enders and the other involved academics were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine on 10 June 1954.

From then on, the alleged "polio virus” was propagated by mixing human foetal skin tissue and muscle with brain substance from people who had died of “polio”, thus inducing total decay. The filtrate from this mixture was considered to contain a virus. The famous Jonas Salk adopted this exact idea without naming the inventor. Salk used the filtrate of decayed human foetal tissue as a polio vaccine, the New York Times stated that the vaccine worked and would be safe and Salk generated millions of dollars with the polio vaccine, without sharing anything with the real inventor of the idea of using decomposing human foetuses.18

For these reasons, Enders worked hard to develop another technique, for which he could take the credit from the very beginning. He chose the second most lucrative area of the germ theory of disease, namely that of the symptoms called measles. Enders used the same ideas and methods from bacteriology (in which he had graduated) and believed that the phages were the viruses of bacteria.

Analogous to this technique of demonstrating how phages allegedly destroy bacteria on a Petri dish, he developed a tissue streak on which allegedly infected fluid was placed. Analogous to the dying off of the bacteria, the dying off of the tissue streak was claimed to be at the same time the presence of the suspected virus, the proof for its existence, its isolation and its propagation. This precise protocol is still applied to date in cases of measles and, slightly modified, as “evidence” of all pathogenic viruses.19 The mixture of dying or dead cells/tissues is now called a “live vaccine”. If single particles of dead tissue or synthethically produced molecules are used in vaccines, the experts call it "killed vaccine” or “inactivated vaccine”.

Enders blamed the strikingly high numbers of deaths and injuries that the Salk polio vaccine caused in the population on the contamination of the vaccine, which is why he worked in his lab with tissues from monkey kidneys and foetal serum from horses and unborn calves.

There are four striking and crucial differences between the evidence of the existing (bacterio)phages and Enders’ alleged evidence of the hypothetic “viruses" in humans and animals. These differences clarify Enders’ wrong assumptions, since he completely forgot his earlier clearly expressed doubts once he had received the Nobel prize, and so he led all of his colleagues and consequently the entire world (see Corona panic) down the wrong path.... The entire world, except a pretty but stubborn schwabian village near the lake Konstanz (where Dr Lanka lives):

1. The (bacterio)phages have indeed been isolated in the meaning of the word “isolation" with standard methods (density gradient centrifugation). Immediately after the isolation they have been photographed in an electron microscope, their purity is determined and then their components, their proteins and their DNA have been biochemically described all at once, in one single paper.

2. With respect to all “viruses” of humans, animals or plants, no virus was ever isolated, photographed in an isolated form and its components were never biochemically characterised all at once, from the “isolate”.

In reality, there was a consensus process over years, in which single particles of dead cells were theoretically ascribed to a virus model. The phages served as a model for this entire interpretation process, as we can see clearly from the first drawings of a "virus”.

3. The tissue and cells used for the “proof and propagation” of “viruses” are prepared in a very special manner before the act of the alleged “infection”. 80% of their nutrients is withdrawn, so that they can become “hungry” and better absorb the “viruses". They are treated with antibiotics in order to exclude the possibility that bacteria, which are present always and everywhere, in all tissues and serums, may cause the expected death of the cells. It was acknowledged only in 1972 by biochemistry experts that those antibiotics were damaging and killing the cells by themselves, a fact that the virologists had previously ignored. “Starvation” and “poisoning” is what kills the cells, but this was and still is misinterpreted as the presence, isolation, effect and propagation of the hypothetical viruses.

4. The control experiments that are crucial and required in science have to date not been carried out with respect to viruses; they could exclude the possibility that instead of a virus just typical cell particles were misinterpreted as a virus. The control experiments regarding the isolation, biochemical description and electron micrographs of the phages, however, were all carried out.

Thus, Enders' speculations dated 1 June 1954(20) about the possible proof of an “agent” which could “possibly" play a role in measles became an apparently "scientific” fact and the exclusive basis for the entire new genetic virology after 1952, all because of his Nobel prize for the “human foetus/polio virus vaccine" in December 1954. A few months after having received his Nobel prize, Enders forgot or suppressed the discrepancies and doubts that he had mentioned himself in his 1954 paper. Still suffering due to the plagiarism committed by Jonas Salk, who had stolen his idea for the polio vaccine, Enders stated that all future developments of a measles vaccine would have to be based on his (Enders’) technique.

Enders killed his tissue cultures himself through the treatment with antibiotics (without negative control experiments - and this is a crucial aspect in the context of mandatory measles vaccination). Ever since Enders experimented with tissue from a young boy named David Edmonston, the first model of a measles “virus” (hypothetically put together from particles of dead tissue) has been called the “Edmonston strain". The measles vaccine, as toxic sum of all those decayed pieces of tissue, is also claimed to contain the “Edmonston strain”. A part of that mixture containing dead monkey tissue and foetal
bovine serum is being constantly frozen and then used regularly to “inoculate" other dying tissue/cells in order to create “measles viruses" and “live vaccines”.

[A Freeman]

The importance of winning the measles virus trial

The crucial expert opinions, protocols and rulings of the measles virus trial (2012-2017) that I will refer to in the following are freely available on the internet www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog. Further expert opinions and refutations of the claims regarding the measles virus, which the Court did not take into account, are published in the editions of the WissenschafftPlus magazine from 2014 to 2017.

The background of the measles virus trial, which began in 2011, was to prevent the planned compulsory measles vaccinations. A former Federal Justice minister had called me and asked for scientific data to help stop the introduction of mandatory vaccination. A leading senior state prosecutor gave us the idea to offer a prize for the proof of the “measles virus” and, in the subsequent civil trial, to legally establish that there is no scientific evidence for the claims that the measles virus exists and that vaccines were safe and effective. Our plan was entirely successful. This is easily understandable if one knows why the paper by John Franklin Enders et al. dated 1 June 1954 became the only and exclusive basis of the entire new genetic virology of the “live virus” vaccine production after the old virology had died a natural death in 1951-1952.

Knowing that the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), contrary to its legal duty, had not published a single paper on the alleged existence of the measles virus, I offered a €100,000 prize for a scientific paper from the RKI containing the scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus. A young doctor from Saarland presented me with six papers but none from the RKI; the papers were; the one from Enders dated 1 June 1954 and five others, based exclusively on Enders’ paper, one of them being the most comprehensive review of other papers on the measles virus. In this “review” they describe the laborious consensus-building process which lasted for decades and included dilemmas such as which parts of the dead tissue are to be ascribed to the measles virus model and also how the measles virus model had to be constantly modified.

I replied to the young doctor (who urgently recommended me to waive the (indeed) costly "legal dispute” and to immediately pay him the prize money) that in none of the six publications was there any identifiable viral structure, but rather easily recognisable typical cellular particles and structures. Thereupon he filed a suit with the Ravensburg Local Court, however, without submitting the six publications to the court. The Ravensburg Court decided against me, even though the six publications never appeared in the legal files. Apart from that, the verdict of the Ravenburg Local Court occurred under more than unusual circumstances.21

The plaintiff admitted to the judge during the appeal at the Stuttgart Higher Court that he himself had never read the six publications. So he was planning to shut me down and thus silence the central refutation of the vaccination through the “tedious legal battle”. He may have been a victim of the false belief in viruses himself, because he probably trusted his teachers, who had no idea about the erroneous development in medicine since 1858 and did not do any historical research with respect to their false beliefs, thus becoming simultaneously culprits and victims of their fatal belief in the germ theories and their trust in vaccinations.

It is plausible that the plaintiff did not read the six publications he presented to me, but not to the court. At least it is clear that he didn’t look for them himself, because they are the only publications in the entire field of about 30,000 technical articles about “measles" in which reference to the accepted existence of the measles virus is made. However, all the tons of other papers, which nobody can ever finish reading, assume “a priori” the existence of the measles virus and always refer to citations of citations, which are finally and exclusively based on the alleged “evidence” supplied by Enders on 1 June 1954.

The Ravensburg Local Court decided in 2014 to accept the lawsuit of Dr Bardens and concluded that the prize money was to be paid out even without any publication from the RKI. Apart from that, the Ravensburg Local Court decided that it wouldn’t be necessary for the scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus to be published in one single paper, but rather that the overall 3,366 papers (the sum of all the papers cited in the six submitted publications) from 1954 to 2007 was to be accepted as proof.

The legally appointed expert Professor Podbielski from Rostock argued accordingly (or the local court adjusted its opening decision to the expert opinion): “I have to expressly clarify that one cannot provide evidence in the classical sense in biology as one can in mathematics or physics. In biology one can only gather clues, which then in their entirety become conclusive.”22

Based on this extremely unscientific claim arising from Podbielski’s lack of arguments and his bias due to the discrepancies between reality and the beliefs he had grown so fond
of, something happened which behavioural scientists call “displacement". Podbielski invented a desperate excuse, namely that biology and the medicine based thereon as well as vaccinations are per se unscientific and without evidence, without proof: In his opinion, only a collection of clues could “some day” and “somehow” (practically) become valid. A more explicit admission of the existent unscientific nature of current biology and medicine has never been expressed with such clarity.

What is most important at present is to make legal use of all this evidence for the unscientific nature of the infection theory and the vaccination policies, which are already impacting our constitutional rights. We need to make the mandatory measles vaccination, voted upon and implemented in Germany as of 1 March 2020, simply disappear.

[The Barbarian]

Das ist falsch:

Genetic characterization of measles viruses

Molecular epidemiology of measles viruses is an important component of outbreak investigations and is used for global surveillance of circulating wild-type measles strains.

Wild-type measles viruses have been divided into eight clades containing 24 genotypes based on the nucleotide sequences of their hemagglutinin (H) and nucleoprotein (N) genes, which are the most variable genes in the viral genome. The eight clades are designated A to H, with numerals to identify the individual genotypes. For each genotype, a reference strain is designated for use in genetic analysis (phylogenetic analysis), usually the earliest known virus isolate of that group. Within a genotype there may be multiple distinct genetic lineages.

The 450 nucleotides encoding the carboxyl-terminal 150 amino acids of the nucleoprotein (N-450) have up to 12% nucleotide variation between genotypes. The entire N-450 sequence is required for determination of the genotype1.

These 19 genotypes have been detected since 1990:
A*, B2, B3, C1, C2, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, G2, G3, H1, H2
These 4 genotypes were identified by global surveillance since 2018:

B3, D4, D8, H1

*Note: All vaccine strains are genotype A, like Moraten and Edmonston-Zagreb.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/php/laborat ... lysis.html

Seems odd to deny pathogens for which their nucleic acid has been sequenced.

[Clownboat]

First off, I believe in evolution, but I don't think scientists really understand it. They have a theory and the theory points in the right direction in some ways but they are a long long way off from substantially understanding evolution. Why? Lots of reasons. Mainly because, for me, the scientific consensus asks for far too much suspension of disbelief. We are being asked (by some scientists) to believe that a collection of molecules can be a person (Barbarian's observations re. environmental factors notwithstanding). Think about what you are being asked to believe; A person is a molecular construction. And this construction of molecules can produce works of art: the Sistine chapel frescoes, Mozart's music, great literature etc. Do you seriously believe that collections of molecules can do these things?

Since I have witnessed humans create such things, not only do I believe they can, but I know they can. Do you seriously believe that humans cannot produce what humans consider to be art?

Did you ever really think deeply about it? And what is involved in great human affairs?

This is just an argument from incredulity.

First of all there is depth in human affairs. That fact alone is asking how molecules could create such depth in the first place - how they can constitute the sublime. How?

You seem to have molecules confused with humans. For example, molecules cannot drive cars, but humans can. It will help to foster better debate if you use words correctly.

And not only that. Your theory would have us believe that molecules know profound things.

You really need to be more accurate with the words you use. When you use the word 'molecules' above, what is it that you really are talking about? It sounds like you are talking about humans, but calling them molecules instead.

An explanation of the depth and richness of human affairs requires a more spiritual explanation. For me it does.

I accept that you believe such a thing and remain unimpressed with this belief you hold.

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #74]

Since I have witnessed humans create such things, not only do I believe they can, but I know they can. Do you seriously believe that humans cannot produce what humans consider to be art?

The question is not whether humans can create art it is about what humans are.

You seem to have molecules confused with humans. For example, molecules cannot drive cars, but humans can.

I made it clear that I mean 'collections' of molecules. ie molecular structures. It is not at all clear to me how molecular structures can constitute a person - environmental influences notwithstanding. Can a collection of molecules be conscious? Even more to the point, can a collection of molecules be randomly constructed and accidently arrive at consciousness and understanding? You don't argue that a computer is intelligent just because it seems to be doing intelligent things. It is only an instrument of the mind. It has no real being. No matter how animated it seems, judging by externals, it is not really alive.

"I think, therefore I am" Thought is not just 'intelligence'. It is many things, which is why I spoke about art, music and literature. Thought is being. It is the 'I am'. In Genesis a soul is breathed into Adam and he becomes alive.

[Clownboat]

The question is not whether humans can create art it is about what humans are.

Your question is dumb then. Would you mind answering mine please?:
"Do you seriously believe that humans cannot produce what humans consider to be art?"

You seem to have molecules confused with humans. For example, molecules cannot drive cars, but humans can.

I made it clear that I mean 'collections' of molecules. ie molecular structures.

I will amend my words then:
You have a collection of molecules confused with what a humans is and your are lessening the quality of debate due to this. I find it dishonest to say things like molecules can't do x, y or z when in reality you are talking about a very well understood thing, ie. what a human is.

Can a collection of molecules be conscious?

You make my point for me! Yes, humans are observed to be conscious. This is why I found the question to be dumb. The answer is well known (yes humans can be conscious) and being pedantic about it just screams silly to me.

Even more to the point, can a collection of molecules be randomly constructed and accidently arrive at consciousness and understanding?

Derp! Humans are observed doing this every single day by the billions. You yourself are an example of this happening, yet you think the questions is apt when changing what you really mean (humans) into something else (a collection of molecules).

You don't argue that a computer is intelligent just because it seems to be doing intelligent things.

This is correct.

It is only an instrument of the mind.

Your body could be said to be an instrument of the mind, but I don't see how a computer could be (nor do I see its relevancy here, but I did not want to ignore this in case you were on to something).

"I think, therefore I am" Thought is not just 'intelligence'. It is many things, which is why I spoke about art, music and literature. Thought is being. It is the 'I am'.

This bundle of words leads us no where. If I'm mistaken, please walk me through where this gets us.

In Genesis a soul is breathed into Adam and he becomes alive.

Please consider the forum you are voluntarily debating in and realize why such words are not impressive.

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #76]

Your question is dumb then. Would you mind answering mine please?:
"Do you seriously believe that humans cannot produce what humans consider to be art?"

From what I have said I clearly believe that humans create art. And comedy too.
But we disagree on what a human is. Isn't that the substance of the debate?

You have a collection of molecules confused with what a humans is and your are lessening the quality of debate due to this.

I was under the impression that you consider humans to be physical beings only. ie. a pattern of molecules. You said "My experience tells me that humans are only matter." This is why I ask if a collection of molecules (= matter) can think.

Yes, humans are observed to be conscious.

If by humans you mean purely physical beings, no. Matter is not conscious in this way.
Mind is conscious but mind is not matter.

Your body could be said to be an instrument of the mind, but I don't see how a computer could be (nor do I see its relevancy here, but I did not want to ignore this in case you were on to something).

In a limited way a computer can be in instrument of the mind. It can help to transmit the ideas from A to B, for example.
It can do arithmetic, calculus etc. Is that not an instrument of the mind?

This bundle of words leads us no where. If I'm mistaken, please walk me through where this gets us.

It clarifies my point of view so you will have a better understanding of what I'm saying.

Please consider the forum you are voluntarily debating in and realize why such words are not impressive.

See last answer.

[mgb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #76]

"I think, therefore I am" Thought is not just 'intelligence'. It is many things, which is why I spoke about art, music and literature. Thought is being. It is the 'I am'.

"This bundle of words leads us no where. If I'm mistaken, please walk me through where this gets us."

1. I think therefore I am. To think is to be. Do you agree?
2. Thought is not just intelligence. Do you agree?
3. Thought is being. It is the 'I am'. Do you agree?

One thing follows on from another in this statement. I don't see it as a bundle of words.

[Clownboat]

From what I have said I clearly believe that humans create art. And comedy too.

Great, then there is no reason to ask if molecules, atom or quarks can create art. Wouldn't that be silly when we are talking about humans?

But we disagree on what a human is. Isn't that the substance of the debate?

We both know what a human is. There is no disagreement until you start using words like molecules when you really are referring to humans.

I was under the impression that you consider humans to be physical beings only. ie. a pattern of molecules.

If you think I would define a human being to be a pattern of molecules or a collection of molecules, you would be sorely mistaken. By that definition, they are no different then a rock, therefore I beg you to use accurate words as it will help to foster better debate.

You said "My experience tells me that humans are only matter." This is why I ask if a collection of molecules (= matter) can think.

Want to understand why I find the question to be dumb... can a rock think?

If by humans you mean purely physical beings, no.

Gah!!! Not all collections of molecules are human and not all purely physical beings are human either. You sully this debate by using odd definitions for well understood terms like human.

Matter is not conscious in this way.

Some matter seems to be. See the human brain for one and then notice that a mind seems to be an emergent property of a functioning brain. Damage to the brain directly affects our minds and I see no reason to assume that our minds our separate from our functioning brains. If you have a valid reason, I'm open to hear it.

Mind is conscious but mind is not matter.

Correct. Our mind seems to be an emergent property of a functioning brain though.

mind
/mīnd/
noun
1.
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

In a limited way a computer can be in instrument of the mind. It can help to transmit the ideas from A to B, for example.
It can do arithmetic, calculus etc. Is that not an instrument of the mind?

The definition for what a mind is has been supplied above.

What puts this to rest:

can a collection of molecules be randomly constructed and accidently arrive at consciousness and understanding?

Copy/paste: Humans are observed doing this every single day by the billions.

Bottom line, molecules cannot create art. Noting that humans are made up of molecules does not justify that there must be something magical that allows humans to create art. I assume this is why you are using odd terms, but such thinking doesn't follow and worse, it disregards the idea that a mind is an emergent property of a functioning mind.

[Clownboat]

1. I think therefore I am. To think is to be. Do you agree?

Sure

2. Thought is not just intelligence. Do you agree?

No. Thoughts are not intelligence.

in·tel·li·gence
/inˈteləj(ə)ns/
noun
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

thought
/THôt/
noun
1.
an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.

3. Thought is being. It is the 'I am'. Do you agree?

No. Our minds are the 'I am'. Our minds are where we do our thinking though, but our thoughts are not 'us'.

One thing follows on from another in this statement. I don't see it as a bundle of words.

They don't though, which is why the bundle of words doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

Can you restate what your actual argument is please, but use accurate words? Perhaps we will have something to discuss.