Michael Wallach, Rabies, Damn Rabies |561|

He was referring to this specific forum. Not defining the term “rebels”
I get that. I'm the one trying to expand the conversation by asking exactly what it means to be a "rebel" — or a discontent, or an activist, whatever the case may be. If you're not interested in going there, that's okay.
 
Cont from the reddit post ...
Genetic sequencing can be done via modeling, in which case there is no physical material to work with. However in a forensic investigation such as a crime involving physical evidence, physical samples containing genetic materials are gathered from the crime scene. They are then compared to samples taken from suspects. If they match, then the likelihood of the suspect being involved in some way is very high ( but not necessarily a certainty ).

What DNA evidence tends to do is shift the "reasonableness" of certainty or doubt. You cannot convict someone when there is reasonable doubt, so if the genetic evidence adds reasonable doubt, a case can be made to have the charges dropped. If it adds reasonable grounds for a conviction, then the suspect will likely be convicted.
 
Cont.
I get that. I'm the one trying to expand the conversation by asking exactly what it means to be a "rebel" — or a discontent, or an activist, whatever the case may be. If you're not interested in going there, that's okay.
But we’re talking about whether there are pathogenic particles that cause specific diseases. Not sociology. I love sociological conversations, but this thread was about Alex saying that Mike Wallach must be an opp because he’s pushing a false narrative. Some of us here want to lay the facts bare and talk about questions actually being posed. It keeps shifting to sociology.
 
Genetic sequencing can be done via modeling, in which case there is no physical material to work with. However in a forensic investigation such as a crime involving physical evidence, physical samples containing genetic materials are gathered from the crime scene. They are then compared to samples taken from suspects. If they match, then the likelihood of the suspect being involved in some way is very high ( but not necessarily a certainty ).

What DNA evidence tends to do is shift the "reasonableness" of certainty or doubt. You cannot convict someone when there is reasonable doubt, so if the genetic evidence adds reasonable doubt, a case can be made to have the charges dropped. If it adds reasonable grounds for a conviction, then the suspect will likely be convicted.

My point was that they have something to ”match” their new sample to. If they find DNA at a crime scene and there’s no match to it, they don’t just make up a character and blame that character for the crime.
 
My point was that they have something to ”match” their new sample to. If they find DNA at a crime scene and there’s no match to it, they don’t just make up a character and blame that character for the crime.
Exactly. The evidence just becomes part of the "unsub's" profile.
 
But we’re talking about whether there are pathogenic particles that cause specific diseases.
Hey I didn't use the word "rebels", but I'm pretty sure that the issue of whether or not pathogens exist was resolved back in the 1600s.
Apparently, what constitutes a pathogen has also been an ongoing point of contention since then.
I wouldn't characterize them as "particles". It seems that things like poisons and radioactivity are in a different class.
 
Last edited:
Hey I didn't use the word "rebels", but I'm pretty sure that the issue of whether or not pathogens exist was resolved back in the 1600s.
Apparently, what constitutes a pathogen has also been an ongoing point of contention since then.
I wouldn't characterize them as "particles". It seems that things like poisons and radioactivity are in a different class.

I’m not sure I would say it was “resolved”. ”Pathogens” have been blamed for diseases caused by environmental toxicity. Pasteur (among others) was a fraud.
 
I’m not sure I would say it was “resolved”. ”Pathogens” have been blamed for diseases caused by environmental toxicity. Pasteur (among others) was a fraud.
  1. Now you're moving the goalposts from the general to the specific.
  2. The issue of Pasteur's dubious behavior doesn't address the issue at hand. *
* Pasteur could have been a serial killer and it wouldn't change the fact that microbes and other pathogens exist.
 
Last edited:
  1. Now you're moving the goalposts from the general to the specific.
  2. The issue of Pasteur's dubious behavior doesn't address the issue at hand. *
* Pasteur could have been a serial killer and it wouldn't change the fact that microbes and other pathogens exist.
MIcrobes exist. Calling them “pathogens” is a misnomer. It’s like blaming the garbagemen for a house being demolished. Disease is caused by toxicity, malnutrition, injury, accident, and time. This idea that there are microbial terrorists is obfuscating the real causes, and protects Industrialists from litigation.
 
  1. Now you're moving the goalposts from the general to the specific.
  2. The issue of Pasteur's dubious behavior doesn't address the issue at hand. *
* Pasteur could have been a serial killer and it wouldn't change the fact that microbes and other pathogens exist.

This has been my “goalpost” from the beginning. Germ theory is an obfuscation, Virology specifically. This forum is full of meandering sociological thought exercises, which are fun, but nobody has admitted yet that they believe that there are submicroscopic obligate intercellular parasites that hijack the protein making process of living organisms to replicate themselves and that the replication process causes specific symptoms of disease. If you believe that, please explain how you’ve come to this belief.
 
This has been my “goalpost” from the beginning. Germ theory is an obfuscation, Virology specifically. This forum is full of meandering sociological thought exercises, which are fun, but nobody has admitted yet that they believe that there are submicroscopic obligate intercellular parasites that hijack the protein making process of living organisms to replicate themselves and that the replication process causes specific symptoms of disease. If you believe that, please explain how you’ve come to this belief.
Thanks to your efforts I’ve been doing a lot of reading and listening on the subject. I’m not 100% sure that virologist would agree with your definition. Just me spit-balling, but I think they see it more as an activity than an actual being / organism.
Over the last few days I’ve been using the mental picture of mushrooms or mycelial organisms. I don’t think you can remove a mushroom from its habitat and regrow it elsewhere or get it to replicate elsewhere. I know mushrooms have underground networks and or routes with which they interconnect. So perhaps wouldn’t the common virology explanation of a virus be more like mushrooms?
And come to think of it I believe mushrooms would qualify or apply much more to a terrain theory model in that they appear in certain conditions. But the key differentiator would be that mushrooms definitely have spores and it’s my understanding that spores are how they spread.
 
If you believe that, please explain how you’ve come to this belief.
Yes. Modern medicine, science, engineering, technology, etc.

Its perfectly rational for me to believe. Could I be wrong and you be right? Sure, but being frustrated that 99+% of the literate world doesn't agree with you is just silly.
 
This has been my “goalpost” from the beginning. Germ theory is an obfuscation, Virology specifically. This forum is full of meandering sociological thought exercises, which are fun, but nobody has admitted yet that they believe that there are submicroscopic obligate intercellular parasites that hijack the protein making process of living organisms to replicate themselves and that the replication process causes specific symptoms of disease. If you believe that, please explain how you’ve come to this belief.

You're asking the wrong person. Ask these people instead: https://micro.hms.harvard.edu/faculty
 
MIcrobes exist. Calling them “pathogens” is a misnomer. It’s like blaming the garbagemen for a house being demolished.
That's not an accurate analogy.
Disease is caused by toxicity, malnutrition, injury, accident, and time.
What you seem to be missing is that pathogens cause toxicity and injury over time on a microscopic level — It's called an infection.
This idea that there are microbial terrorists is obfuscating the real causes, and protects Industrialists from litigation.
Have you ever considered the possibility that infection is a "real cause" AND that you have valid points about toxicity, malnutrition, injury, and accidents, AND that industry contributes both positively and negatively to the variables involved? Because that's a more holistic way of looking at the situation. I have no doubt that the vaccine industry is definitely involved in the type of obfuscation you describe, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as microbial or viral infections.

My suggestion for you, is that if you want to make a difference in your quest to help people avoid occupational diseases, that instead of making yourself seem unhinged by denying one truth in order to highlight another, that you focus on the problem of occupational diseases.
 
That's not an accurate analogy.

What you seem to be missing is that pathogens cause toxicity and injury over time on a microscopic level — It's called an infection.

Have you ever considered the possibility that infection is a "real cause" AND that you have valid points about toxicity, malnutrition, injury, and accidents, AND that industry contributes both positively and negatively to the variables involved? Because that's a more holistic way of looking at the situation. I have no doubt that the vaccine industry is definitely involved in the type of obfuscation you describe, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as microbial or viral infections.

My suggestion for you, is that if you want to make a difference in your quest to help people avoid occupational diseases, that instead of making yourself seem unhinged by denying one truth in order to highlight another, that you focus on the problem of occupational diseases.
It’s my analogy. Don’t tell me if it’s accurate or not.
 
That's not an accurate analogy.

What you seem to be missing is that pathogens cause toxicity and injury over time on a microscopic level — It's called an infection.

Have you ever considered the possibility that infection is a "real cause" AND that you have valid points about toxicity, malnutrition, injury, and accidents, AND that industry contributes both positively and negatively to the variables involved? Because that's a more holistic way of looking at the situation. I have no doubt that the vaccine industry is definitely involved in the type of obfuscation you describe, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as microbial or viral infections.

My suggestion for you, is that if you want to make a difference in your quest to help people avoid occupational diseases, that instead of making yourself seem unhinged by denying one truth in order to highlight another, that you focus on the problem of occupational diseases.
Sorry, I’m not interested in your suggestions on how to improve my overall being. But thanks for sharing.

If you believe that pathogens are a concern, then by all means, sanitize your kitchen with Lysol and wear gloves when you open doors. I don’t have to go along with this delusion that there are little monsters coming to get me.

Yes, I understand what an infection is. It’s not a body being attacked by pathogens. Bacteria are like a clean up crew of dying tissue. Why is the tissue dying? That’s the question. It’s not dying because it’s being attacked by bacteria. It was dying first. The bacteria come next in the chain.

Yes, I understand that antibiotics can save lives. I’m not saying that you should just let bacteria eat your diseased tissue until you are dead, but I am saying that blaming them for the cause of the disease is erroneous.

And if I seem unhinged to you, maybe it’s because your hinges are a little too tight. You seem to have long wordy arguments on every thread in this forum.

And you still haven’t answered my question: do you believe that there are submicroscopic obligate intercellular parasites that hijack the protein making process of living creatures in order to replicate themselves, and that replication process causes specific disease symptoms?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top