🤔 that aligns with the quote I posted from the book earlier about a pure isolated form of a virus never being found. If sickness comes from outside our bodies, we should be able to find a virus before it infects us right?
Discussion
We should be able to find it, period. We should be able to isolate it (and replicate that isolation), and then use it in experiments - without other agents that are known to be toxic to animals - and reliably create infection or symptoms in other organisms.
As nostr:npub1qyxlpj2gl6dt2nfvkl4yyrl6pr2hjkycrdh2dr5r42n7ktwn7pdqrdmu7u noted, some humans/animals may not get ill because of the strength of their immune system, but you should at least see some pattern of infection from this isolated infectious agent.
And if not, then we should really turn our focus not to infectious agents but to the immune system.
Correct! This is almost word for word what was written in one of my books. If you can’t isolate the virus, then the cause of illness shouldn’t be the virus. It should be those factors that bill mentioned. I believe those would be considered the independent variables. In animal studies, you can manipulate those factors and see if there is a cause and effect relationship. If you can’t isolate the virus, then how would you even expose someone to it?
Yes
The book - is it Virus Mania? I have it but haven't read it yet
No it’s goodbye germ theory
oh! haven't heard of that one. Good?
It’s pretty good but it is more opinionated and doesn’t have a references section. Right now I’m reading can you catch a cold by Daniel Roytas and it has tons of sources. This one feels more professional for sure and he tries to not take a side.
Isolation is also a misleading argument. An analogy using the same form of argumentation, I've never seen a fish live once we isolate it from the water so fish aren't real living things.
I've also never seen a living human outside of the air, they die every time really quick. Totally proves they aren't independent living beings.
If you take a living organism outside of the environment it evolved to live in it dies and then decays. Duh.
The isolation is of the organism or infective agent itself.
You can isolate a whole fish, and you can see it live in the water or dead out of water.
Until relatively recently, we always used isolation in looking at illness: identify and isolate a bacteria, then test it in different contexts. Isolation is not a novel or unusual concept.
So where did the virus come from then?
The virus has to live in a very narrow, temperature, humidity, PH, and so on range. Just like you do. Take them out of that and they start to die and then decay. Just like you do.
For cold and flu relatives that basically means inside your nose and lungs. Briefly in bits of snot, boogers, and drool you blast into your general vicinity by breathing, sneezing, or picking your nose then touching something.
Sat next to me, you breathed in some of my tiny boogers I sprayed around by breathing. Ever smelled a fart so bad you could taste it? You just eat shit. Life is gross.
Remember you talked about relative humidity drying out your mucus membranes causing illness earlier? That is already part of contagion theory. The health of your mucus membranes affects how hospitable they are to the virus. That means they affect the % chance you get sick after spending time next to someone else who is shedding virus particles.
But how did the virus get into my mucus membrane or nose or whatever humid environment it needs?
I just told you. You inhaled clouds of snot that were fresh enough that the virus hadn't died yet.
Where did that person’s snot get the virus?
From another person's snot. So it goes with the virus mutating all along the way and those mutations are where new viruses come from.
It is no different than saying where did the first human in NYC come from? Or any other larger living thing and place. Slow genetic mutation and travel from a prior living thing all the way back to the first replicator. TLDR, evolution applies at both scales. It actually started on those tiny things and then created bigger ones.
So you’re saying that someone is always carrying a virus all the time even if they’re not sick?
No, but with 7 billion of us someone is always sick somewhere.
Okay so someone somewhere will be sick and then it spreads to everyone. Why doesn’t everyone get sick?
We’re going in circles again. Not everyone gets sick because there are certain factors and conditions that need to be in place. So if the presence of a virus alone cannot be established to create a cause and effect relationship. Then it shouldn’t be considered the cause of illness. It should be those factors and conditions that you talked about like stress, fatigue, and those other things you mentioned.
Ethics aside, if I wanted to make someone sick then I would compromise those factors. I wouldn’t just expose them to the virus. This actually would make more sense because I’ve been told that you are constantly fighting off viruses and bacteria all the time. That they are everywhere.
But again, the variability in the effectiveness of the immune system is already part of contagion theory.
I need a spark and a fuel to make a fire. Both.
Sparks happen in confined spaces with no fuel and no fire happens all the time. Flammable things sit around not catching fire all the time. I'm posting this sitting on a wooden chair.
Sometimes sparks are big or small (virus exposure level, think passing a stranger on the street vs making out with someone) and sometimes they land on fire bricks or gasoline (a strong or weak immune system)
No one who understands contagion theory would argue that the immune system response doesn't vary and massively effect your chances of getting sick.
You are focused entirely on the flammability. I'm not denying that the flammability matters. I'm saying that the can of gasoline in my garage year round for my mower proves that the spark is important too.
We’ve drifted so far past the initial topic of discussion. I’m going to bring it back to the beginning. I asked for a double blind placebo controlled comparative study that shows vaccinated individuals have better health outcomes than unvaccinated individuals. This doesn’t exist. But this is the gold standard in scientific research. Without this, how can one truly attribute causality? You can’t.
You argued about it being unethical to expose people to a virus because it endangers them. But you’ve made this claim without evidence. It hasn’t been established with true science that viruses cause illness. So you’re starting with a presumption that virus causes disease and then you start finding solutions for an unproven premise.
So now they put a vaccine in people. But the vaccine doesn’t impact the other factors we talked about like stress and your immune system. And since viruses and bacteria are everywhere and have been found in our bodies even when healthy, the real causal factors of illness should be those factors like your immune system. Instead of giving vaccines, maybe they should be giving immune boosters.
And my last question, why haven’t they done a comparative study on vaccinated and unvaccinated populations? Just look at the health outcomes. Do they get sick more often? Do they have more health problems? It’s not even an experiment, we just want to know who is generally healthier. We know that exercise is good for you because people who exercise generally have better health outcomes.
A lot of this I already tried to answer as we went.
I will say I looked for an all cause mortality comparison. I can't find it. Disappointing. Search results are all about the covid vaccine and I already said I won't piss on that electric fence.
The best I can do is point to a rise in global life expectancy after the invention of vaccines. A lot of other things changed so I won't declare that to be a final answer. I'm here to share truth backed with real evidence not just say what I think will win the argument for my side.
I think a lot of your misunderstanding comes from wanting a binary yes or no answer to things. Science simply doesn't work that way. Each bit of scientific knowledge has a little imaginary probability attached to it. Higher or lower probability based on the quality of reseach and number of studies that align with that fact.
We're always building that body of knowledge and that means that probability for each "fact" MIPis always changing. If you don't have an intuitive sense that those probabilities are there and what they are for different current scientific beliefs it is rough. You'll never understand why sometimes a challenge to existing science is met with a laugh and sometimes it gets a maybe.
If you do grasp that you can see why I say sure the data isn't gold standard but this model has more data showing how it aligns accurately with observation than any other model for this thing, so we let it ride here.
Once upon a time there was a visualization of this concept rating various supplements by meta analysis of existing studies. 1 axis showed confidence rating of the average study and bubble size showed how many studies there were. I can't find it now but the mental model stuck with me. Also holy shit take Creatine for sure no excuses no other supplement was even close.
I take creatine every day. I’m not sure if I should be taking more than 5 grams though.
Here’s one last thing I’ll post from another study someone shared about this topic. This study mentioned that a majority of the research found a large variance of 0-80%. Maybe I’m not understanding exactly what that means but my initial reaction is to question the reliability of most research findings. Seems like a giant mess to navigate research in general.
nostr:note1ms3cvcylymmr4chr88kgm6ean7wpmxsg7l77dvc6h3u5heql8e6qzcgxwg
Depends on your size and activity level. There is a chart somewhere that shows dose by weight. For men 10g daily is around 220 to 240lbs.
I’m not that big I’ll stick with 5 grams for now
3 times a day. No days off. No pain no gain.
https://video.nostr.build/456d03ebee99e38230a4f8002afdf58abfcaee3a90ba24adc6704dc858fad919.mp4
Maybe you aren't getting your mantras right.
On that note. Time for my fat ass to do some cardio.
You might find this interesting ðŸ¤
I know. I don't actually do cardio to lose weight. I just say stupid things for a laugh.
Low intensity steady state cardio is good for helping your body transition back into a relaxed state. I try to do some every day, just a walk is fine. I can see the difference in my heart statistics in my tracker with only a couple days doing it or skipping it.
The opposing, sort of, view.
Endurance training definitely has its benefits
Do you believe in things like that? Been trying to learn about it and keep an open mind but fuck it just seems so illogical
Sort of but not really.
I like to deadlift to Simon Says by Pharoahe Monch. It changes my mindset that make it easier for me to dig deeper.
Were not talking a huge difference. But in the realm where if you think you can you can and if you think you can't you can't I think it can make it so you can.
That’s kinda where I am right now
If you study a person's snot - and keep the snot at body temperature, humidity, etc - you should be able to find the full virus.
You can. It is just easier if you grow it up to a billion particles instead of the thousand you start with. They were found first, then the process of growing them in cultures to make them easier to find was devised.