HIV
infection
It seems likely that HIV is a fictitious viral
infection that was invented for political reasons and that the illnesses
associated with AIDS are either themselves fictitious (eg, cancer) or the
result of treatment and other circumstantial factors.[1] If we set aside, as Descartes asks us to, the
foundational facts of science that we have been told[2],
and instead rely on observation and reasoning to decide what is most likely to
be true, it seems impossible that virus cells would damage, or kill, the
person. Even if one assumes that they
are able to travel, despite their size, through liquids and tissues, or travel
through membranes from spaces and cavities within the body, and thrive and
multiply (by whatever means), and assuming that they have a motive for harming
and killing the person, a virus cell that is initially imperceptible to the
senses, and which remains invisible to the eye, will not possess the ability to
inflict harm, whatever its number, ie, however many cells might theoretically
inhabit the body at any one time (including those that may remain after their
death). This is because the capacity of
a large number of individual cells to inflict harm may not be substantially
greater than that of the individual cell and will not be of the same magnitude
as that of a larger organism of a size corresponding to that of a large number
of viral cells. Even if the individual
cells were able to join together to form a larger substance, as is the case,
for example, with the constituent parts of a tumour or of an animal, or each
produced the same toxic substance, the fact that the viral cell is invisibly
small to the eye, even when a light is shone on it, implies that by whatever
number it is multiplied, it will have no volume or weight and so not be capable
of harm for the reason that it does not exist.
When a person is sickened by, for example, the flu or the common cold,
this is because the body is weak, not because it has been infected by a virus
of any kind. Similarly, a person who
falls ill or dies apparently of HIV infection does so because of a cumulative
weakening caused by the treatment, perhaps including, but not restricted to,
medication as well as other factors but
not because of HIV viral infection.
First, the claim that viral cells can
be viewed under a microscope needs to be treated with suspicion. Although diagnosis is by a ‘colour’ test,
which it is possible now to do in the home but which needs to be sent to a
laboratory for analysis, it is said to be possible to view the HIV virus cells
under a microscope, either within blood samples or where the cells have been
partially, or completely, isolated from bodily fluids. If, as is claimed, the
virus is approximately one times ten to the minus nine metres in diameter, and
if, as is claimed, a magnification of around ten thousand is needed to view the
cell, the magnified image of the cell would be one hundredth of a millimetre in
diameter, ie, too small to be viewed and smaller than the image of the cell
apparently seen under a microscope. In
any case, it is not apparent that something as small as a virus cell would
exist as a particular entity, nor that anything, whatever its size, would
present a clear image with such a magnification.
A thing can be divided, arithmetically,
by one times ten to the negative nine, and living things and objects (such as
the image on a computer screen) may be divided into very large numbers of
constituent parts mathematically (geometrically), but that does not mean that
anything so small that it cannot be seen by the eye exists as a complete
entity. Although particular – in the sense
of whole - living things may exist at an extremely small size (even if some
moving life forms appear to emerge, in some conditions, at a larger size from,
for example, fruit fibres), it is likely to be possible to view them clearly only
at the size at which it becomes possible to view them with the eye alone.
The eye is able to see very small
things clearly at close range. For
example, it is possible to see with the eye alone tiny spores of mould and also
tiny insects in motion. However, the eye
blurs, even if it also seems to magnify, objects that are at either a greater
or lesser focal length (as, for example, when a page is brought too close to
the eye the letters can appear larger, as can letters at the periphery of what
we are reading, but also blur). A
camera lens (or telescope) can allow us to see things beyond our normal range
of vision relatively clearly and distinctly. Objects beyond or closer than the
object we are focusing on may appear somewhat larger but will be blurred. Also, from observation, the image of objects,
such as tiny insects, will blur when the image viewed is larger than the size
the objects appear when viewed by the eye alone; in other words, clarity is
lost with any magnification. The magnification needed to produce a visible
image of a viral cell of one times ten to the negative nine metres would, even
if it were technologically possible to achieve, be such as to make the image
impossible to identify as a ‘cell’.
The image of a cancer cell could not be seen, to use Descartes’
phrase, clearly and distinctly. Instead, the microscope acts similarly to a
kaleidoscope. First, a microscope
would not be able to view objects the size of cancer, viral or Ebola cells
because the image would blur at the magnification needed, as one can see from
using a camera, which can bring things closer but not magnify without losing
clarity, so that what one cannot see with the eye alone is not likely to exist.
Second, when someone looks into a microscope they are not focusing on
the glass slide, but on something positioned before it within the
cylinder: their focal length is shorter
than the distance between their eyes and the slide. This can be tested by removing one’s eye
from the eyepiece and noticing that one has to adjust one’s vision before being
able to see a similarly small object placed on, or by, the slide. Whether the adjustment is the result of the
difference in lighting or the length of the cylinder or position of the object,
one is not focusing on the object on the slide. Whether or not the object on the slide is
magnified, or by how much, when one looks into the microscope one is viewing
very small objects as if they were not magnified, ie, the objects may alter in
size when magnified but one’s vision does not.
In other words, one is looking at magnified objects as though one were
looking at larger objects with the eye alone.
Therefore, by looking into the microscope cylinder one adjusts one’s
focal length so that the object on the slide would actually blur, or appear
smaller, because beyond one’s normal focal point, than if one were viewing it
with the eye alone, ie, without a microscope. Third, although it might seem possible
that an image of the material on the slide is projected onto a screen within
the microscope, rather than viewed directly, the arrangement of the microscope
makes this unlikely even if the objects one views looked like they might be
projected, and some of them do not. The
arrangement of the microscope does not make projection seem all that likely:
one would expect the slide to be encased, so that there is no possibility of
diffusion before light also has to enter the object lenses, before
magnification within the microscope takes place, and in such a way that the
material to be viewed is not obstructed before it is magnified, by the glass on
the microscope on the stage and on the slide itself. In fact, if I remove the glass slide using my
own microscope the image does not apparently change. Also, while the more fixed objects at the
lower end of the cylinder have a shadowy look that might suggest projection,
this is also an effect of magnification, ie, of blurring, while the objects
nearer the eye have a more translucent look.
My own microscope, a Prinz Opti-Craft Microscope Outfit, Zoom 100x
to 900x, purchased in the late 1960s, contains a slide with a butterfly scale
on it contained within a glass cover slip.
With a concentrated beam of light, it can appear as though the light
captures the red scale such that a red ‘wash’ appears in the cylinder, although
at other times when the image on the screen is present, there is no colouration
of the image. Whether or not the mark is
too small for it to be seen if the slide is removed or present, there is no
significant magnification if its presence cannot be detected. On the slide there is an opaque,
cream-coloured, label, marked ‘Butterfly Scale, Japan’ (where the microscope
was made). If one turns the slide over,
there is a similar, but smaller, mark, ie, apparently a second scale, or part
of one (the first is rectangular, the second circular, so together they might
resemble the marks of a code), in the glass of the slide behind the label. Although I had originally thought I had
detected this scale when using the microscope with sufficient light penetrating
the label to illuminate the screen, thinking that the point being made might be
that the light from the mirror could illuminate material in the first slide but
not the cover slip (but still the cylinder), I have not seen it
subsequently. It seems much more likely
that the point being made is that just as the second scale had been hidden by
the semi opaque label, so any material on the slide is hidden by a semi opaque
object within the microscope. The microscope
apparently has a magnification of 100 to 900 times, although only the focus is
labelled 10x and 15x. However, if
there were more powerful magnification lenses within the microscope, would they
reach as far as the material on the slide even if not blocked by an opaque
material of some sort? Similarly, if the
microscope were internally lit, one would expect the focus of the light to be
the object on the slide., but there is no beam of light with a traditional
microscope. Also, from observation, if
the light, whether from behind or from the mirror, is too great, the image in
the cylinder will blur, in the same way that one sometimes only sees a blur
when looking into a camera in bright light.
Finally, whether or not one squints when looking into the cylinder one’s
focal length is less than that needed to see clearly the objects on the slide,
even if one is not apparently squinting, as can be observed if one removes
one’s eye from the eyepiece. On the
other hand, if there were such a powerful zoom lens within the microscope (100
x to 900 x), ie, beyond the effect created by the cylinder itself, one would in
fact expect the object to be further away, since the effect of a zoom, as with
any magnification, is to extend one’s focal length. Although the fact that and the reasons
why one is not able to be able to see what is not on the slide need to be
re-tested in different lights and to be better thought through, once one doubts
that one is viewing what is on the slide it seems almost certain that one is
viewing something contained within the microscope as well as, in some lights,
the lenses of one’s own eye projected above it.
Instead, when someone looks into a traditional microscope, upon
which the science of diagnosed disease is based, they are not viewing the
material on the glass slide but an image within the cylinder. If one illuminates the cylinder of the
microscope with a mirror one sees the same image as when the microscope is lit
with batteries or an electric current (which were an evolution from the
original way of lighting the microscope with a mirror). When using the mirror to light the
microscope one may see little or nothing in the way of an image on the screen
of the microscope, even if there is enough light to illuminate the cylinder and
screen (ie, it appears blank) but if brighter natural or artificial light (but
not too much) is captured by the mirror, an image appears on the screen and
before it (ie, closer to the eye). The
upper image has a more layered and translucent look and appears less fixed than
the image on the screen.
Looking into the microscope, one can see the lenses of one’s own
eye projected in the cylinder before a
more fixed image on the screen. That
one is seeing the lenses of one’s eye is apparent because it is an image one
sees when squinting into the light.
Looking in the microscope the effect is achieved whether or not one
squints, if one closes the other eye, because of the relative darkness of the
cylinder. The more fixed image on the
screen has a more shadowy look than the brighter, translucent, image of the
lens of one’s eye, suggesting it might be projected from below, rather than
illuminated by, the screen, or the shadowy look might be the result of greater
magnification – ie, it represents a loss of clarity. It also has a denser, more detailed, look
(even though the projected image of the lens of one’s own eye becomes denser as
one moves one’s, concave, eye away from the eyepiece and looks into it, such
that the image appears smaller, as more compact, than if one were not looking
into the glass).
Although there are a greater number of objects within the image on
the screen than in the image of the lens of one’s eye (but nor do they take on
the ‘pixel’ effect one sometimes see when, for instance, opening one’s eyes in
the morning after sleep, resembling something more like a road map), the basic
structure, when using my own microscope, is not that different nor the
resembling objects of the structure of a different size, from the image of the
projected lens of one’s own eye. For
example, when viewing the projected lens of one’s own eye, one sees translucent
‘ribbons’. The image on the screen has
ribbons of a similar length and width, albeit with a darker and more shadowy
look and with ‘knots’ in them. Although
the more shadowy look suggests a greater magnification, this might be the
result of projection and the greater number of objects because they are better
illuminated. Although many things in
nature mimic other things, the similarity of the structure lends some support
to the idea that one is viewing on the screen an object with similar
characteristics to the lenses of one’s own eye and at a similar magnification,
which is not significantly greater than that done by the eye itself when
squinting into sunlight.
Examination of the ‘objective lenses’ at the bottom of the
microscope suggest that what one may be seeing when looking into the microscope
is, in fact, the lens of a smaller eye, since, without wishing to take my own microscope
apart, I can see what resembles the hard orange ‘iris’ of a bird (it
particularly looks like that on a pigeon) inside the larger of the three
objective lenses of the microscope, and on two when photographed and magnified. When moving the largest of the three
objective lens, the iris type object becomes more or less visible, as though
the round object has been placed between two lenses, or bits of glass, but
occupying a slightly smaller space.
An image of this object may be projected directly by the light
from the mirror onto the screen, although if one tilts one’s eye one can see
smaller images to the left and right, suggesting some sort arrangement of
mirrors, as in a kaleidoscope. The
magnification is probably comparable to that achieved by the eye and the
eyepiece, since although the image is more crowded than that of one’s own eye,
the width of the ‘ribbons’ is similar, suggesting that the difference between
the two materials is a result in their different characteristics and better
lighting rather than a difference in
magnification. This is plausible also if
one thinks that one is not seeing the whole of the visible lens of one’s own
eye when squinting into the eyepiece, ie, the image of the lens of the smaller
eye could fill the screen with a similar magnification if placed in the
appropriate position.
Second, it seems odd that HIV ‘cells’ cannot
survive for long outside the human body.
Why would they not, in the potentially more hospitable, and autonomous,
environment (in terms of temperature, hydration, available nutrition, rest)
outside the body? From observation,
mould, for instance, appears to thrive in certain conditions but not noticeably
within the human body, and this is true of most, if not all, living things,
apart from the body’s constituent parts. What is it about virus cells that make
the human body an inhospitable environment for most living organisms but the
only environment hospitable to HIV virus cells?
And would this not make the virus cells especially careful not to
destroy their host by virtue of their number or any other means, or to alter
the body significantly?
If it is because the viral cell can only live at
human body temperature (although other relatively small organisms, such as
fleas, can live at relatively cold temperatures, and smaller organisms seem
better able to regulate their body temperature than larger ones) why would it
not survive outside the body (or in other species) if the temperature
approximated body temperature? And why
would the temperature be correct in all climates and all physical states and
throughout the body, given that body temperature can appear to vary significantly
even without there necessarily being a significant change in measured
temperature? And what is the body temperature of the virus?
Third, the nature of transmission seems
unlikely. Why would the virus cells enter a part of the body, in the case
of sexual activity, from which they might be expelled before they were able to
travel, and where they would be likely to receive less in the way of
nourishment perhaps (ie, where waste is about to be expelled)? If it is because they can only survive and
spread by coming into contact with blood, why would this be so, given the size
of the viral cell, and what would this imply about their movement within the
body? If the body is able to prevent
the absorption of harmful virus cells from the digestive system, despite, or because
of, the small size of the virus cells,
how is the virus able to leave the body of one person, enter another, survive,
apparently multiply, and then travel to other parts of the body after coming
into contact only with blood at, or near, the surface of the body?
For example, during sexual intercourse, the HIV
cells are said to travel from the semen, blood, or vaginal discharge of one
person into the blood stream of another.
In the case of uncircumcised males, transmission would seem to be more likely
from semen into the blood stream. How is
something as small as an apparently invisible virus cell able to travel out of
the semen? In the case of blood to blood
transmission, how plausible is it that virus cells are able to move in blood in
order, first, to leave the body of one person and, second, to multiply, remain
dormant (without necessarily presenting more than ‘transient’ symptoms at the
site of entry or the rest of the body), and then travel and cause harm?
From observation, a flea, larger than an apparently
invisibly small 'virus cell', cannot move within even a fairly thin liquid once
it has got into it without getting stuck or appearing to drown. How would a virus cell, or a number of virus
cells, be able to swim within blood and discharges in order to enter the
‘lymph’, and from the lymph enter other parts of the body, especially as the
spaces between ‘cells’ and cavities within the body are not said to constitute
a hospitable environment, and cells would in any case at some stage need to
leave the spaces or cavities in order to enter the body itself? On the other hand, if they could travel with
ease within all bodily fluids, why can they not enter the body via mucous or
saliva? Whatever the consistency, or
viscosity, of different bodily fluids in different environments (eg, blood can
vary in thickness, and colour), it seems implausible that an invisibly small
virus cell, or its descendants, would be able to leave the area they have
inhabited and travel within the body.
Fourth, the process of replication seems
unclear. The virus is said to replicate
within the human body, since the spaces between ‘cells’ and cavities within the
body are not said to constitute a hospitable environment for reproduction
(which is consistent with the stated fact that they cannot live outside the
body and makes the explanation of cell alteration more coherent, if not more
plausible). It is said to replicate by
first binding to, and then entering, the host cell, and injecting its DNA (said
to be converted into DNA from RNA by an agent within the host cell) into the
nucleus of the host cell. It is not
clear, first, how it would be able to enter the cell. The fusing of membranes would be more
plausible if the viral cell and host cell were of a similar size, or the viral
cell were larger, but a blood cell is said to be sixty times larger than the
viral ‘capsid’. Nor is it clear why the
injection of ‘DNA’ , which is information, would lead to the creation of new
life, as the two have a different ontological status: ie, one is abstract (whether
or not it is ‘embedded’) and one is concrete, in the sense of being living
matter. Also, the explanation of
replication suggests that the creation of the new viral cell is dependent upon
interaction with the host cell, rather than simply finding the host a
hospitable environment, even if it does not actually blur the distinction
between reproduction of viral cells and alteration of host cells. That a decaying life form, including a viral
cell, might produce a new organism seems possible from observation of nature. But there is no satisfactory explanation of
why a viral cell, imperceptible to the senses, is able to reproduce with and
otherwise alter the host cell, only an assertion that this is the case. Also, whether or not the literature attempts
to explain this, it also seems implausible that either the initial cell or its
offspring would be able to leave the host cell with ease in order to continue
the process of reproduction and alteration of cells elsewhere in the body.
Fifth, it seems unlikely that cells would be able
to replicate in sufficient numbers in areas such as lymph nodes in order later
to cause harm throughout the body. If
they have not been perceptible at the site of entry, how likely are they, according
to common sense (which is based on our experience and memory of comparable
events), to pose a threat to the rest of the body? On the other hand, if they need to alter
cells in other parts of the body in order to do harm, and there also does not
appear to be a clear distinction between replication and alteration of cells, is
it likely that they would remain at the site of entry for up to several years,
rather than travel earlier, also to make their possible eradication (for
example, through surgery) less likely?
Sixth, a virus cell, if such a thing
existed, would not be able to cause harm.
If it can only survive in the human body, if this is the only
environment in which it can obtain nourishment and which is not dangerous to it,
how would destroying its host create a better environment? If the reason is that it does not expect to
survive its host and gains an advantage in the short term, then, setting aside
the question of whether this is how nature, as opposed to humanity, behaves,
how would any number of virus cells be able to do damage to a living being? Although not said to be the case with HIV
infection, one would think that subsequent exposure would be of relevance if
harm increases with the number of cells present, and especially if the body
becomes to any extent resistant to an earlier version of the virus . (And that
the initial exposure would need to contain above a minimum number of viral
cells such that below that number would pose no risk, either immediately or as
a result of reproduction if introduced in a hypothetical AIDS vaccine).[3]
Assuming its motive was to obtain
nourishment from the host, including from feeding on it and its nutrients, how
would something as small as a virus cell be able to cause harm. From observation, fruit flies may cover the
skin of, for example, an apple, but cannot penetrate it in order to gain the
nourishment within it. Could any number
of virus cells pass through any skin, or membrane, within the body, in order to
harm its tissues or organs? Small flies
may enter relatively solid fruits that have had their skins removed, but they
do not appear to alter the fruit’s shape substantially or cause it to decay or
dry any faster than if they were not present, and, in fact, seem to feed less
on the fruit itself than the mould that appears on it as it decays, so that the
flies’ effect appears to be, in some way, beneficial. But if the virus’s intention was to consume a
part of the body, in which case the HIV virus is essentially the flesh eating
bug that was discovered some time after the discovery of the HIV virus, how
could something invisibly small erode the human body? How much damage can something invisibly small
do over whatever length of time and by whatever number it is multiplied? Common sense suggests that a virus cell that
cannot live outside the human body would not live for a long time or multiply
rapidly and in great numbers inside it.
In any case, would the virus cells not seek to regulate their number so
as to maintain a hospitable environment?
But, however long they lived, and however rapidly and by whatever number
they multiplied, something that is initially invisible will not multiply to
something with mass.
Given the size of the virus cell, the
mechanism of harm could not be physical force: no matter how great their
number, something as small as a virus cell – even if it existed - would not be
able to overpower a host. The ‘cells’
of the body are apparently invisible to the eye but, when multiplied, make up
tissue and organs, whereas HIV virus cells cannot be seen by the eye (as, for
example, one sees particles of dust when a light is shone on them), whatever
their number. However, even if something
invisible to the eye did exist, which is unlikely, something that is so small
that it is invisible would not be able to harm the body, no matter how many
were present. This is because the
capacity of a large number of cells to inflict harm, including as they die, is
not substantially greater than that of the individual cell (as, for example, a
number of very small simultaneous stings will not hurt significantly more than
one sting, and as the sound of several birds singing will not be significantly
louder than that of the song of one bird).
A very large number of very small viral cells would therefore not be
able to overwhelm the body by force, including through obstruction.
But nor would it possible for the
mechanism of harm to be toxicity.
Usually something toxic has a taste or a smell, for example, a food that
is no longer fresh or a product that contains dead organisms (eg, ammonia),
especially if it contains water. But the
HIV virus is said to be a living organism that has no smell or taste, for
example, when isolated in numbers on a slide.
A toxin that enters the body will harm it according to the nature and
amount of the toxin, usually initially, and the body will generally recover.[4] Examples of toxins include those medicines that
cause unpleasant side effects and rotten food (which is likely to make the
person feel unwell and which is usually expelled). From observation, it seems impossible that,
since they appear to have no toxic qualities, including smell, when isolated,
including after they have died, that viral cells would become so toxic within the
body as to cause symptoms or kill the person.
Although the virus is said to weaken
and kill cells (for example, the ‘T cells’ that normally fight infection), if
the mechanism is alteration rather than cell death (which would be the case,
for instance, with cancer, where the virus would presumably become an agent or
catalyst, or the initial one, of cell proliferation), how would it be able to
do so? How would a virus cell, or a part
of it, be able to cause a harmful alteration in the tissues or organs of the
human body if not by force or through some toxic quality? The process is sometimes asserted and
sometimes explained in terms such that it appears to be coherent but which is
either not consistent with observation of nature or seems to contradict common
sense, which is an abstraction from observation[5].
Where the process is said to be
mutation of host cells, there is no adequate explanation of how this happens, of
the mechanism by which the viral cell is able to alter the genetic code of host
cells, in the sense either of the nature of the mechanical link between either
the viral cell and host cell or the host cell and disease-causing mutation or
the agent of change if it is not physical force or toxicity. But nor could there be since the link between
information, contained in DNA, and living matter is not explained, in the sense
of overcoming the duality between abstract and concrete, or at least of
explaining how an abstract entity can act as an agent of alteration, whether or
not the RNA/DNA is said to be embedded in proteins and whether or not it is
itself said to be altered by environmental factors and over time (ie, ageing).
In any case, the diseases that viral
cells are said to cause are themselves likely to be fictitious. For example, there is not a consistent
account of what a cancerous cell looks like, i.e., of what distinguishes it
from non- malignant cells or from the tissue of benign tumours (so that a
diagnosis of malignancy may be made according to invasion of surrounding tissue
rather than by cell pathology), but nor is it clear how a cancerous cell can
invade, or otherwise affect, surrounding cells and tissue, nor how it could
break away and travel to distant organs, nor how it would ultimately kill,
i.e., whether it is through the alteration, destruction, denial of nutrients,
or obstruction of vital organs. It seems
likely that lumps in the body, including those that we know to be present near
its surface, are the result of such things as knocks, and reflect injury of
some sort, such as knocks, and it is possible that some might even have a
protective purpose (ie, to protect against further injury). Finally, whether or not there is an attempt
to explain, rather than assert, it in the literature, nor is it clear why or
how, in the sense of through what mechanism or mechanisms of causation, a viral
cell would be able to cause a ‘cluster’ of different illnesses.
What kills in the case of apparently fatal
illnesses such as those associated with AIDS is a cumulative weakening that may
be partially caused by medication (prescription or otherwise), especially when
there are initial unpleasant side effects, but which may be as likely to be
caused by other factors, physical and psychological, in the environment of
someone diagnosed with a viral infection (or other disease). These include such things as alcohol,
tobacco, and non-prescription medications and well as narcotics, which either
weaken or else stimulate and then weaken, introduce toxins into the body, cause
diarrhoea[6]
or constipation (which can cause headaches and occasionally fainting), encourage
anorexia, depress or confuse and cause poor decision making, make one more
susceptible to colds and respiratory illnesses (especially if one believes one
‘catches’ them from others), and as well to night sweats, rashes and spots,
which are the body’s response to fatigue, cold, heat, dehydration or over
hydration, and malnourishment, which, at the same time, the body may be less
able to recognise and to respond to).
Other factors include surgery, which weakens, at least temporarily, so
increasing the risk from other depressants, because of anaesthesia or blood
loss; poor diet (insufficient calories, food that is not fresh or rotten or
includes ingredients derived from toxins); environmental factors, particularly
inadequate heating, extreme heat, fluctuations in temperature, and gas
emissions; excessive physical exercise or overwork, or too little exercise; insomnia,
or too much sleep. In addition, and
perhaps decisive, is the psychological stress and fatalism caused by the belief
that one has a potentially fatal illness. As you do not need gravity to
explain why things fall to earth, you do not need cancer and HIV/AIDS to
explain why people who have received a diagnosis of either might eventually
fall ill.
In 1985, HIV infection was reported to
be the cause of a group of illnesses affecting homosexuals, heroin users, and
Haitians (hhh). Although there is now a
test for HIV infection that can be carried out in the home, the results still
need to be obtained from a laboratory.
Whether or not a vaccine would be safe and effective, apparently
promising trials, for example, in Thailand ten years ago, have come to
nothing. Although life expectancies for
those testing ‘HIV positive’ are now said to be near normal, a diagnosis will
narrow life choices and create fear.
Although there is said to be a global food crisis, it seems unlikely
that nature would present insurmountable problems such that humanity’s survival
would depend on inventing and treating fictitious illnesses, while intended
rational decisions about the targeting of individuals and populations will have
been made, even on their own terms (for example, the economic and environmental
consequences), in error.
[1] Thabo Mbeke, after becoming
president of South Africa in 1999, changed his mind about the causes of
illnesses associated with AIDS, arguing that they were not caused by HIV
infection but that poverty was the main ‘co-factor’ in diagnosis.
[2]For example, that the earth travels
around the sun at 66,600 miles per hour (Hutchinson and Britannica
encyclopedias).
[3]If a vaccine contains a live virus
cell, it is not clear why it would not itself cause harm or how if it is
weakened or dead it could produce ‘antibodies’ that would be effective against
subsequent exposure to the virus.?
[4]A
person may become ‘used’ to a toxic substance that enters the body
repeatedly. This would suggest either a
purely psychological adaptation, or that the person’s physical state had
changed, most plausibly that the body has weakened such that it is less
responsive to the toxic nature of the substance, even if a lower exposure to a
toxin does appear to confer some protection when one is exposed subsequently to
larger amount.
[5]It may
seem a reasonable hypothesis, for example, that every person has something
within them, either an innate quality or a code (although you need to
distinguish between the thing and the information, so that, for instance,
injecting the code into the nucleus of a host cell would not explain
replication), but how likely, or efficient, would it be for an identical code
to be present in most cells of the organism?
[6]Diarrhoea is beneficial in the
sense, for example, that it rids the bodies of toxins or liquid (which the body
needs less of, for instance, in very hot weather). What would be the benefit to either the body
or the virus of diarrhoea when both are competing for nutrients if the virus is
not itself toxic (and there is no suggestion that the virus is expelled from
the body)?
No comments:
Post a Comment