BUTWT (Barking Up The Wrong Tree)
"Science stops where politics (or marketing) begins" ---Rex Harrill 2000
We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds---1841
|The Virus "Hoax"|
What causes people to think as we do? Who knows? Perhaps these stories can help us regain our perspective. Understand that this is not a humor page. Instead, it is hoped you will see reason in the stories to mistrust bureaucrats, medical hucksters, or anyone else who demands you simply accept orthodoxy. They really don't have your best interests at heart and they sometimes stampede the populace so that we thinking people get swept away in the madness.
...several years before van Leeuwenhoek
discovered the world of microbes, the chemist van Helmont had given his
prescription for the rearing of mice: "Put some soiled cloth into a jar
full of wheat; toward the twenty-first day fermentation ceases and, as a result
of the emanations from the grain, true mice will be born in the jar. These
are capable of mating with normal animals."
...as reported by Charles Gernez-Rieux.
STRANGE BUT TRUE: The babies who died because of
'medical fashion' POISONING
The Sunday Telegraph Robert Matthews; 10-19-1997
...Usually, it is merely the advance of knowledge that suffers from such intransigence. Fashions in medicine, however, can cost lives. Dr Ann Dally, a medical historian at the Wellcome Institute, has uncovered a particularly egregious example in Pink Disease, which began striking babies and toddlers in the last century and was still being reported in the 1950s.
The first cases were noticed by doctors in Australia in the 1880s: young children aged between six to 18 months came to hospitals with anorexia, peeling bright pink skin, their gums inflamed, and their hands the color of raw beef. The children were in great distress and as many as a third died.
In the search for explanations, one seemed particularly attractive: viral infection. Some support for the virus theory came from the fact that siblings of the children sometimes also contracted the disease, and that - like chickenpox - one "infection" seemed to protect them in later life.
But according to Dr. Dally, there was a more potent reason for believing in the virus theory: medical fashion. During the 1890s, all diseases of unknown origin were thought to be the result of infection, a view backed by emerging evidence for the existence of viruses.
The other leading explanation for Pink Disease was that the children were suffering from a nutritional deficiency. Again, there was some support for it: the symptoms of Pink Disease bore similarities to those of pellagra, which was known to be linked to diet. Yet fashion again was a major driver behind this explanation. Nutritional deficiency was receiving much attention in the early part of the century, and the importance of vitamins emerged in 1912.
As ever, the followers of fashion had to turn their backs on some awkward facts. Why, for example, did the "virus" only strike down children, and never adults? If, on the other hand, Pink Disease was caused by poor nutrition, why were the children often from well-fed families?
According to Dr Dally, clues to the real cause were there for anyone who took the trouble to look. The symptoms of Pink Disease bore many
similarities to that of mercury poisoning: depression, loss of appetite, inflamed gums. In 1945 a researcher at the Cincinnati Children's
Hospital found high concentrations of mercury in the urine of a child
with the disease; other studies confirmed the link.
By the mid-1950s, the real culprit had emerged: calomel-based teething powders - which were rich in mercury. Even the manufacturers became convinced by the evidence, and voluntarily withdrew the products.
However, textbooks continued to trot out the old explanations: not until 1967 did the World Health Organization finally list Pink Disease in the section on toxic effects of mercury.
Writing in the current issue of the Journal of the Society for the Social History of Medicine, Dr. Dally says that "the theory that mercury poisoning caused Pink Disease was gradually accepted, but against resistance, particularly by older men and those in powerful positions"
Precisely such people are, of course, asked to write textbooks - thus passing their own prejudices on to the next generation. The moral of this tale of intellectual intransigence seems to be that in science, as in everyday life, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
BACK TO TOP
Pellagra, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, and dragging the medical establishment into the modern world.
Here's an interesting message that arrived in an online newsgroup not too long ago...
"The Pellagra Plague in the US South over the first four decades of this century, for which Fowler's Solution (arsenic) was the drug of choice, killed huge numbers of people. Heaps of impressive research articles were published in the medical journals regarding treatments for the germs causing this terrible disease, which affected millions and caused people to die in droves. But it turned out the experts were all barking up the wrong tree. Everyone now knows that pellagra is a disease of nutritional deficiency, and has nothing to do with germs. Pity about the quarantined patients in dozens of specially built pellagra hospitals who died of arsenic poisoning before the experts eventually changed their minds."
[Certainly, the phrase "barking up the wrong tree" was enough to warrant an investigation. I found this report from Awake! magazine (dated January 1977) that gave a few more details...]
"In Italian "pellagra" means "rough skin." But this malady brings much more. It eventually leads to insanity and death. As is often true in the vitamin story, many individual pioneers linked the disease with nutrition. However, even in the mid-1800's, since pellagra was found mostly among poor rural folk who lived chiefly on corn, popular theories attributed it to "corn poison" and "infection."
"In 1915 more than 10,000 people died of pellagra in the United States alone. With its rapid spread, the United States Health Department sent Dr. Joseph Goldberger to the deep South, where this plague had reached epidemic proportions.
"What Goldberger found was appalling the victims were listless, slumped, covered with blotches. In view of the poor hygiene among many, with flies crawling everywhere, he easily could have been misled as to the real cause. But Goldberger suspected that the answer lay in faulty diet. He had noted that in state asylum hospitals the patients developed pellagra but the staff did not. Why? There was frequent contact between the two groups. But the staff had a diet of milk, meat, and eggs, whereas the patients lived mostly on cereals.
"Yet, even while newspapers printed the results of his studies as to the need for protein, a medical commission published the view that pellagra was an infectious disease caused by the sting of the stable fly! Goldberger was horrified. He firmly believed that until nutrition was recognized as the cause, people would continue to die by the thousands. What could he do to prove that infection was not the cause?
"He announced that, under, medical supervision, he and fifteen other volunteers would "infect" themselves by taking mucus from pellagra victims into their bodies. To the great surprise of many, none of the Volunteers developed pellagra. From that time forward, Goldberger's conclusion that a diet consisting of cornmeal, rice and pork fat surely led to pellagra was accepted."
[Now, it is well-known that pellagra persisted until the 1930s---which seems incredible if the cause was out there for all to see in 1915. So I did more research and came across this unattributed remark...]
"During these two decades, in which many people died of the disease, the Eugenics Record Office conducted a massive campaign to discredit Goldberger's work and continue the idea that pellagra resulted from a hereditary defect. Charles Davenport, the Office director and chairman of the National Pellagra Commission, continued to argue that susceptibility to pellagra was inherited, just as the "susceptibility to tuberculosis" was among Irish Americans, so that all attempts to improve dietary or sanitary conditions among the affected groups were futile. "
Could this be one of those common-interest "conspiracies," perhaps allowed by the harsh racism of that era (many of the victims, perhaps half, were black). Or should we write it off to stubbornness? Perhaps it doesn't matter that much to many of us at this late date, but I suspect it really mattered in those tens of thousands of families who had to watch one or more members slowly move from sickness to the cemetery.
BACK TO TOP
The Monstrous Virus Hoax: The Scam that Made the Grade! ...by T.C. Fry
"Mommy, what is a virus?"
How many youngsters have asked this simple question when told they are sick because they have a "virus"?
And how many parents have responded like this?
"A virus is a little beast so small you can't see it with your eyes. It gets into you and causes terrible sickness."
That explanation is about as illuminating as any you'll come across. Dr Stephen S. Marse, when asked the question, responded like this:
"Considering the virus's size and simplicity (an infectious agent is little more than a collection of genes wrapped in a protein case) it can cause tremendous damage. Unlike other living organisms a virus doesn't eat secrete, or propel itself, and it's unable to reproduce without the aid of another living creature. Instead, this microbial commando reprograms the cells of another organism, making it the virus's "host" or, in many cases, it's victim.
A reprogrammed cell becomes a traitor, forced to cease it's normal
functions and obsessively manufacture copies of the invader. The virus then
seizes key positions in the host's body and spreads to other hosts-in-waiting
at the first opportunity. Some viruses attack and disable their victims with cruel speed. Ebola has an incubation period of just 5 to 8 days, and
a mortality rate as high as 90 percent. Other viruses take years to harm their hosts. AIDS can incubate for up to a decade, allowing the
deadly agent plenty of time to pass to new hosts before it's ill-effects become apparent. Others, such as herpes simplex,
co-exist so well we're often unaware of their presence."
I ask: IS THIS VIEWPOINT SCIENTIFIC? IS IT EVEN LOGICAL?
I've read dozens of descriptions of viruses in books on the subject, dictionaries, encyclopedias, in magazines, newspapers, and sundry other places. This explanation is about as far afield as any.
I want to respond to these statements on a point by point basis, as an indictment. Let's get into a bill of particulars:
1. The viral explanation of disease was concocted and imposed on the world through big lie techniques by a monstrous cartel that owns and/or controls the world's banking industry, the chemical industries, the dope cartels, the drug or pharmaceutical and medical industries, the communications media including TV, newspapers, most magazines, the educational system and radio and, in fact, most industries of any consequence worldwide.
2. No clinical or laboratory research has ever been done to prove that so-called viruses have any modus operandi or cause anything at all. A so-called virus has no nerves, sensors or any quality of life. To do tremendous damage, the "virus" must have physical, chemical and/or electrical capabilities. No evidence has ever, in about the last 100 years it has been blamed for diseases, been adduced to prove that so-called viruses have any life or any capabilities whatsoever!
3. That indeed, so-called viruses do not eat or drink, have no metabolism with which to change anything or generate energy, no secretions, no defecation, no activities, no nerves, sensors or (electrical) nerve energy, no reproductive faculties nor, in fact, any qualities of life whatsoever. Thusly, what are called viruses are indeed dead organic matter consisting of genetic and chromosomal RNA and DNA encased in a protein capsid, those capsids being identical to the capsids of the genomes within the many thousands of life units called mitochondria or organelles that populate every human cell from a few hundred up to 30,000 or more.
4. That, as genomes, so-called viruses are merely the genetic patterns for entitative organisms with all the qualities of life as in bacteria, mitochondria, (organelles) fungi and human cells!
5. That these genomes from cellular nuclei and mitochondria are, in fact, the genetic patterns for mitosis (cellular and mitochondrial division and replication), for mitochondrial protein synthesis, for mitochondrial sugar use (glucose combustion or conversion through oxidation) and conversion into body energy through the medium of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and a myriad of other life processes.
6. That, when Koch's postulates shot down the bacterial explanation for disease, the medical/pharmaceutical cartel, with a vested interest in disease, as opposed to health, erected new scapegoats called viruses to be fought with drugs, thus selling their nefarious products. Just as readily as they shot down the germ theory, so too, do Koch's postulates impale and discredit the viral theory of disease causation.
7. That no research or experiments have ever been reported where so-called viruses were tested according to the criteria of Koch's postulates.
8. That lifeless genomes do not and cannot invade cells as reported and photographed. What has been photographed are cells conducting eating processes called pinocytosis or phagocytosis wherein they absorb for recycling breakdown debris from disintegrated neighboring cells that have expired.
9. Statements that so-called viruses, without any life qualities, or any ability to move or maneuver, attack cells, seize positions, inject themselves into a cell, command a cell, infect a cell, program a cell, wreak tremendous damage or in any manner perform any act or in any way cause any result are inherently absurd. The living organism always acts and causes results favorable to itself. Only pure chemical unions from chemicals (poisons) pose a serious threat. Dead materials are always acted upon! Only the living organism does the acting. The very statement that "viruses" attack when they do not have any faculties for movement, propulsion, assault or offensive action, and have no energy or capability for any activity at all and have no have no equipment for damaging anything at all, is sheer fiction.
10. That so-called viruses are in fact, genomic cellular debris, the cytomegalovirus having been the genomic nucleus from an expired cell. Most so-called viruses are the genomes from the several hundred up to 30,000 or more mitochondria inhabiting a cell, the population of the cell being determined by it's specialization and function.
By far the preponderance in number of so-called viruses have been genomes in the trillions upon trillions of mitochondria or organelles which comprised the living units of the hundreds of billions of cells which expire daily in the human body. Some so-called viruses are called cytomegaloviruses, meaning they are "big cell viruses." In fact, these monstrous sized viruses, comparatively, are from the nucleus of a cell which is larger in itself than several thousand mitochondria combined. Other "viruses" may enter the portal blood from the intestines where bacteria die by the trillions each day! They too, have genomes.
11. That "viruses" which are extraneous to the human body, are mostly from bacteria and fungi.
12. That "viruses" by the trillions are consumed daily by human body cells that providentially recycle the contents of body cells that die. By processes called pinocytosis and phagocytosis, cells in contact with food invaginate, form an impromptu stomach, secrete lysosomes as digestants and thusly break "viruses" and other materials down into amino acids, simple fatty acids and glucose for purposes of reuse. Minerals and vitamins associated therewith are also reused. The photographs of these processes always show action on behalf of the cell, never the so-called virus.
13. That it's a monstrous contrived lie that a dead bit of organic material, a genome called a virus, can "command" anything to reproduce it. It does not, in fact, get reproduced, but is recycled--it is only further reduced by cellular digestive processes into it's basic nutrients. Should a genome be reproduced, it would ONLY be as part of an organism (a cell, bacterium, fungus, mitochondrion, or organelle, etc.) for which it is merely a genetic pattern. Such obligate reproduction by a cell of an alien genome as stated and implied by apologists and propagandists for the medical system, is contrary to all the principles of biology.
14. That a "microbial commando" is a myth of the imagination of so-called scientists who prostitute themselves in service to an unconscionable and murderous cartel with a vested interest in a diseased and suffering populace. This vested interest consists in marketing medical services, insurance, drugs and all attendant upon that. Further, this interest is in creating mediocre beings who do not think or question, in order that their power or propaganda will be above criticism. The term "microbe" means a minute form of life and a genome is in no sense a bit of life. It bears repeating that it is only the genomic debris from what was a life unit.
15. That the only victims of "viruses" are humans who have been conned into believing such preposterous nonsense.
16. That viruses do not incubate! Incubation is, in fact, the development of a fertilized ovum into a multi-cellular creature. No other processes can be called "incubation" without doing violence to the word and the language. Neither are viruses dormant, inasmuch as only living things estivate, hibernate or in any way suspend activities. Repeat: Genomes or "viruses" are dead cellular debris in the first place, and are incapable of any activities in the first place. Therefore, they cannot suspend activity, and cannot be said to be "dormant."
17. The statement that "viruses," really genomic debris without limbs, flagella, teeth, mouths, and other faculties, can attack and disable a large and self-sufficient cell millions of times larger is irrational, illogical, ridiculous, and in fact, stupid.
18. That the cartel which concocted, perpetrated and perpetuated the viral myth designed it as a scapegoat to accomplish, among other objectives, the diversion of attention away from the disease-causing role of their drugs, the foods of their commerce, cooked foods, fermenting and putrefying intestinal contents caused by conventional diets and practices, condiments, recreational drugs, and a host of other causal agencies in which they have a vested interest.
19. That the word "virus" originally meant and still means merely a poison despite all the new definitions accommodating this 100-year old myth. The word virulent does not mean contagious, but merely poisonous.
20. That, today, explanations of disease attributed to "viruses" are giving way to explanations blaming weak, poor or defective genes.
21. That genomic debris was pronounced to be "viruses" after the the introduction of the electron microscope in 1936. That, prior to that time, reference to them was tantamount to attributing cause of diseases to evil spirits for, other than being referred to as "filterable viruses", there were no ascertainable parameters for adjudging cause.
22. That cells naturally resist and, with their multitude of defensive faculties, speedily dispatch or destroy "attackers", especially lifeless materials that are contrary to their interests.
23. That, upon cellular death, (several hundred billion cells die daily within the human body) sacs within each cell containing lysosomes rupture and disintegrate the cell into debris. That debris includes the remains of around 20 to 30 thousand mitochondria or organelles in most cells other than those of the blood. Because of their extraordinary protection by capsids, lysosomes do not disintegrate the integument of the genomes thoroughly, trillions of them daily remaining relatively intact through the process. These genomes do not, however, remain intact through the recycling process. They are digested and recycled by a very provident body.
24. Physiologists teach that cells are disintegrated upon their death by their own lysosomes. What, pray tell, enables presumed "viruses" to survive the onslaught of powerful digestive enzymes, while mitochondrial genomes die? Especially as there is not and cannot be any differentiation between them, both being identical? How can chemicals discern the difference between its mitochondrial genomes and "alien viruses" presumably created by a cell through a fictional modus operandi which, if true, would STILL be composed of domestic materials created by the cell's processes. There is an axiom/postulate that says that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. In physiology this is tantamount to saying that the genomes of cells and mitochondria are real so-called viruses are mere ATTRIBUTIONS, really created myths of a medical system desperate for scapegoats.
I hope you can see, dear reader, that this "settled medical question" is merely a commonly accepted myth of medical creation and has no basis in facts. I hope you can see that truth taught in biology, that is that no organism has the capability of reproducing an alien organism.
I urge you to study thoughtfully and critically! Think for yourself! When you accept the prognostications of others, you are liable to be unawarely impressed into their service.
As a small biological (non-toxic) farmer, I don't find Fry's remarks all that far out in left field (pun intended). For instance, I have learned over the years that improved plant nutrition can make one's crops utterly immune to "viral" or bacterial "disease"---even if the crops of the man farming the next field are over-run with troubles. That is a major beauty of using a refractometer: if one is successful in improving the Brix index of the crop, disease simply goes away.
Further "viral" reading for the
BACK TO TOP BACK TO ASTONISHING DISSENT
Scurvy: Two Stories
"The sailor's legs were so swollen that he could not walk. His captain, hoping to stop the spread of the dreaded "scurvy infection," put the man ashore on a desolate Atlantic island. The poor wretch was bound to die, the captain felt, but perhaps the rest of the crew could thus be saved.
"The deserted man chewed on fresh grass that he found in tufts here and there on the island. To his amazement, in a few days he could walk a little! His strength soon returned and eventually he managed to get picked up by a passing ship and he returned to his London home. Imagine, the shock of his former shipmates when they first saw him, it was as if he had been resurrected !!!
"The story of the sailor who "ate grass like a beast, and lived" was of great interest to a Scottish surgeon, Dr. James Lind." ...Awake Magazine
Amazing! He ate grass and got well.
On May 20, 1747, HMS Salisbury sailed for Plymouth Colony with Dr. Lind aboard. There were also 12 sailors with scurvy.
Dr. Lind divided his dozen ill men into six groups of two each. All 12 shared a common diet for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but each group received a different supplement as follows:
1. quart of boiled apple juice daily
2. twenty-five drops of elixir vitriol (sulfuric acid and aromatics)
3. two spoonfuls of vinegar three times a day
4. concoction of herbs and spices
5. half-pint of sea water daily
6. two oranges and one lemon daily
The two men who ate the oranges and lemon started recovering immediately!
Up to that point, estimates were that far more than 10,000 British sailors had died over the years with scurvy.
In 1795, not quite half a century after Dr. Lind's trip, the Royal Navy decided that each sailor should get fresh raw lime juice each day. Scurvy promptly disappeared from the fleet. History does not record if Lind was around to feel vindicated.
Wow! It only took 50 years for the bureaucrats to decide sailors needed a solution. But that is not the point of this story. The point is that by 1747 the medical libraries of the world were amply endowed with books claiming that scurvy was caused by everything from leetle beasties, to swamp air, to witchcraft---and beyond. Germ theorists---those who are *always* sure that small entities are out to "get" us, give up slowly, if at all.
Current medical "science" is struggling to assign a genetic "cause" to every dis-ease. Is it possible some researchers are born with a genetic urge to bark up the wrong tree?
BACK TO TOP