Author Topic: Virus Question  (Read 617 times)

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 804
  • Thanked: 333 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Virus Question
« on: May 31, 2020, 06:54:36 PM »
How is it that some viruses mutate to the point that the vaccine becomes ineffective, while others seemingly do not?  There is a new flu vaccine every year, where as I don't believe the measles vaccine is new every year.  And, both are viruses. 

That doesn't make sense to me.  It is as if some virusus are alive or active, while others are not.  As I see it, no virus is alive. It is only when it reacts to something else that enables it to multiply.  And, depending on what that someting is it is reacting with determines whether it multiplies greatly, or is killed off by the immune system.  However, whatever the multiply rate, it by necessity mutates, because it is not alive. 

So, if we know that very common seasonal viruses mutate, why is it that others do not seem to mutate?  Is it the case that the viruses that do not mutate to the same extent are not driven by nature with its seasons and so on, but are instead created in and released from laboratories, which would account for the fact that the same old vaccines work for them?

It is like GMO crops. You cannot harvest the seeds and replant them to be used with roundup.  They have mutated in a sense. They react to their environment, and are no longer the same as what was initially planted.  GMO seeds are made in laboratories, and that is why they are so expensive, but it is also why the same old roundup works with them.  They don't make a new roundup mix every year.  Similarly, there are viruses that don't need a new vaccine every year.  I wonder why?  The only cause I can think of is because they are made in laboratories and released when needed. 

Maybe I am wrong, but this is my thinking. And, I will not put it past the world or virologists.  The science is not that old, and scientists generally have a bad wrap.  Perhaps it is all biological warfare unto the new world order.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 07:24:08 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 804
  • Thanked: 333 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2020, 07:15:29 PM »
There seems to be two conflicting schools of thought regarding what is alive. You have those who believe that certain things, like plants, humans, and animals represent that which is alive.  And, then you have those who believe that things which are merely potent, are alive.  For example, a chemistry experiment might combine two things that violently react with each other causing an explosion.  That explosion is not alive.  It is simply a chemical reaction.  This seems to be the current thinking with viruses.  They use the example of crystals, and consider them alive.  Then you have superstitious people who think crystals have healing properties, as if they are alive.

I think the crux of this debate is the concept of beginning and end. Things that are currently unanimously regarded as alive have a beginning and an end.  I say "currently" because we do believe in the garden of Eden.  Moving on, potential things that react with other potential things do not have a beginning and end. They mutate, sometimes gently, sometimes violently.

And, this school of thought is pervasive.  Think of the big bang theory.  They want you to believe that a violent reaction is the source of all life.  They want you to believe that things that are not alive, are alive, and in fact the source of life.  They want you to believe that the volcano eruption that destroys them, and in their mind all life on earth, is in fact the source of life, and to be worshipped.  It is crazy talk, and it currently has the whole world in a stir, with the only difference being something called a virus, which we cannot even see.  This is definitely an end game scenario.  Viruses are not alive.  You must reject that idea.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 07:27:33 PM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 214 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2020, 09:02:05 AM »
How is it that some viruses mutate to the point that the vaccine becomes ineffective, while others seemingly do not?  There is a new flu vaccine every year, where as I don't believe the measles vaccine is new every year.  And, both are viruses. 

What vaccines have been shown to be effective? Effective for what? You know how this works? If a subject tests positive for antibodies after administration of the vaccine, which translated means nothing more than a blood sample added to presumed viral antigens leading to a reaction between an enzyme and a reagent, then the vaccine "works". The rest is  theoretical, meaning it ought to work to reduce the severity of the associated disease in the vaccinated individual if their theory is correct. I've never seen a double-blind control study that demonstrates this.
 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9085
  • Thanked: 3523 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2020, 12:04:57 PM »
Quote
There seems to be two conflicting schools of thought regarding what is alive.

We have to define life.  For this example we'll assume Vitamin C works in a cell unchanged.  You will see this has no bearing on the argument, it just makes it convenient since everyone knows what Vit. C is.

So I look inside a cell and see Vit. C participating in the operation of the cell.  I pull it out of the cell and put it in a dish.  Is the Vitamin C alive?  Clearly not, it look just like the Vitamin C in your pill.  I put it back in a cell and it is participating in the function of the cell.  But we know it is not alive from above.  So if Vitamin C is not alive, point to the "life" part in the cell.  You can't.

So define life.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5548
  • Thanked: 3655 times
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2020, 01:57:31 PM »
Interesting question.

When you watch this video, it's clear that the molecules within the cell are alive, even though they are just chemicals at a sub-cellular level. They might be a good analog to viruses.


 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Padraig, queen.saints

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9085
  • Thanked: 3523 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2020, 05:41:25 PM »
Actually the molecules inside are not "alive" per se.  Life is immaterial.  So it would be more correct to say that the molecules participate in life.

By the way, after watching that video, it is impossible to be an atheist.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne

Offline Padraig

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 326
  • Thanked: 461 times
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2020, 09:48:17 PM »
I disagree that the molecules are not alive, per se. Especially, as you say, life is immaterial. If a single cell could.be said to be alive, as a part of the whole organism, then the molecules which make it up could be just as alive, in my opinion. The difference, I believe, between two random molecules crashing into each other in a chemical reaction and the proteins in the video going about their operations, is intelligent direction. Random molecules are not directed, but the molecules in the video are directed, they have an intelligence that it would naive to dismiss.

You're absolutely correct that after watching that video it should be impossible to be an atheist.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, queen.saints

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9085
  • Thanked: 3523 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2020, 06:26:39 PM »
I agree with you points, especially differentiating between random collisions vs. molecules directed in a cell; I'm just demanding precision.  Molecules participate in life.  Life is immaterial.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 214 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2020, 06:18:43 PM »
How is it that some viruses mutate to the point that the vaccine becomes ineffective, while others seemingly do not?  There is a new flu vaccine every year, where as I don't believe the measles vaccine is new every year.  And, both are viruses. 

What vaccines have been shown to be effective? Effective for what? You know how this works? If a subject tests positive for antibodies after administration of the vaccine, which translated means nothing more than a blood sample added to presumed viral antigens leading to a reaction between an enzyme and a reagent, then the vaccine "works". The rest is  theoretical, meaning it ought to work to reduce the severity of the associated disease in the vaccinated individual if their theory is correct. I've never seen a double-blind control study that demonstrates this.

Not to be confused with randomised placebo studies that look for “infection”, e.g., a positive result on a RT-PCR test. They do those.
 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 214 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2020, 06:49:41 AM »
So, if we know that very common seasonal viruses mutate, why is it that others do not seem to mutate?  Is it the case that the viruses that do not mutate to the same extent are not driven by nature with its seasons and so on, but are instead created in and released from laboratories, which would account for the fact that the same old vaccines work for them?

What do you mean by viral mutation? Complete virus genomes are always reconstructed from piecing together short sequences of genetic code according to some rules, heuristics and assumptions about the viral genome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_alignment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing_theory The bioinformatician is doing his job, but garbage in, garbage out. What's different with viruses is that in their cases these sequences cannot be shown to really belong to the hypothesised entity. You can't isolate a virus from cellular material and extract RNA or DNA from it. Viral mutation or variation in RNA sequences naturally produced by the body? What tests can you use to decide this?
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 804
  • Thanked: 333 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Virus Question
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2020, 02:52:27 PM »
By the way, after watching that video, it is impossible to be an atheist.

"Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed."
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12