Not really. Calling it monomorphic is a straw man. Modern medicine knows very well that cells can change states, bacteria have life cycle driven and environment driven variations on their forms, and that there are many more things not yet understood than understood. I am only talking about what I see from the evidence I've seen, and it is just not explained well by your theory, in my opinion.
Bechamp's pleomorphic theory.
He was certainly way ahead of his time, but he did not have modern methods of observation to see if his hypothesis was correct. We now "know" that cell and bacteria organelles have their roots in smaller, simpler, more ancient organisms, bacteria being like trucks full of these organisms and eukaryotic cells like cities full of them. Perhaps some of these organelles are indeed virus sized. However, we can also separate and analyze the genetic sequences of the organelles, and in the case of mitochondria it is done very commonly. There is no mechanism for healthy cells to generate previously nonexistent DNA sequences and explode into piles of tiny vessels of this new DNA sequence, and even if there were it would not reliably generate the same DNA sequences in many people infectiously across the whole world, sequences that can be differentiated from other similar sequences and vastly different from the DNA of healthy human cells.
you believe in monomorphism, that all microorganisms (or microforms) are fixed species... that each pathological type produces (usually) only one specific disease... that blood and tissues are sterile under healthy conditions
That's quite a straw man. No, I do not believe that, nor does modern medicine. It is well known that diseases vary in effect from person to person, and that these viruses mutate constantly. The attempt to understand how and why it varies and how to still correctly diagnose such diseases is a big part of modern disease research. The purpose of identifying the exact cause of a particular disease is to be able to correctly cure it. Bechamp was as much a proponent of identifying the root cause as anyone, he just had a different theory about it.
I am considering the possibility of pleomorphism... that there are no specific diseases, but only specific disease conditions.
This is simply not supported by the evidence. Even in Bechamps time, bacteria were a known cause of disease. Heck, his theory was based on seeing organelles inside of bacteria. He did not have the benefit of DNA sequencing to figure out if he was correct or not. We do have that benefit today, and viral DNA species have distinct genetic codes compared to bacteria, and bacteria have many thousands of distinct species groups as well. Even if a bacteria could shrink to the size of a virus as part of its life cycle or as a reaction to its environment, it cannot alter its entire DNA chain into a completely unrelated code and remain functional. There's simply no mechanism for doing so. The genetic mechanism for a virus to be a virus, however, is well understood and apparent from evidence available.
may very well be endogenous repair mechanisms expressed when in the presence of a disease condition.
This actually explains the variance in disease symptoms and strength very poorly, since why would different people have identical reactions to completely different disease conditions?
Pleomorphic bacterial phages, what you call "viruses that attack other bacteria" may very well be proteins expressed by bacterial cells as a repair mechanism.
Well, no, bacteriophages kill bacteria, and more bacteriophages emerge from the corpse. Certainly, that is not the bacteria repairing itself.
Honestly, you are dismissing all evidence, straw manning me and modern science, and making a wild claim based on a 170 year old outdated theory. There is plenty wrong with modern medicine, it's almost all poison, but Bechamps pleomorphic theory is not the magical solution.
you are completely dismissing the fact that the so-called "covid" virus has never been isolated
No I've admitted multiple times it's never been isolated in the way you mean.
yet expect your argument that it is real based on a probablistic computer model to hold water.
Yes. Using math to overcome physical limitations is a normal and rational thing to do. Almost all astronomy is done this way.
That's just not how science works.
You are quite incorrect. Tons of science works exactly this way, it is a valid avenue of progress towards better understanding. It can be wrong and people have come to wrong conclusions many times, but that is true of science done without statistical analysis as well.
Science states that viruses are things. Things can be isolated and observed.
Ok, go isolate and observe a black hole. If you can't I will claim that black hole doesn't exist.
If a worldwide pandemic is being declared due to a novel corona virus transmissible between humans, I expect to see the research where it has been isolated from a human and proven infectious.
You are conflating 2 different things here. The virus can be real and the international response to it can still be completely full of shit. Proving that the bureaucrats and politicians are liars does not prove that germ theory is fundamentally incorrect.
The fact that it hasn't says a lot, despite your excuses about technological inability, etc.
It really doesn't. And, you are straw manning again. I never said that the virus cannot be proven to exist and proven to be infectious, I said a single virus cannot be isolated. But, there's plenty of evidence that the virus is real, and that it is infectious. It is nowhere near as infectious or lethal as they claim, but it is real and is infecting people.
can you give me an example of a virus, after having mutated, that presents as a completely different disease?
SARS and COVID, same virus (corona virus), different symptoms, different lethality, different infectiousness. That said, they probably did not mutate naturally, but were instead engineered.
What you call an "outdated" theory is only "outdated" because the prevailing scientific authorities around a hundred years ago dismissed the evidence supporting it
No, I call it outdated because since then more modern technology has demonstrated that it was not correct. I think there are some elements to pleomorphism that perhaps should not have been dismissed, and that may have delayed progress by decades, but progress was made anyway. If Bechamp had the evidence we do now, I doubt very much he would come to the same conclusion he did then. Though, obviously modern medicine is not going particularly well for the health of humanity, it's still way off the rails.
merely theoretical, predicted by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
I get the impression you don't know what theoretical means in a scientific context. Einstien's theory has been proven in many different ways, dismissing it as "just a theory" is not intelligent.
black holes have been questioned by Hawking as to their very existence.
Nonsense. We may not know what they are, may not even be able to ever know exactly, but that something is there and happening is plainly obvious.
it is quite another to develop vaccines based on the existence of viruses as a fact.
I'm anti-vaccine, so that argument makes no sense as a counter to what I've said. Viruses existing has nothing to do with whether vaccines are healthy or not.
We do not refer to viruses as "theoretical" and develop vaccines to reduce the transmission of "probable" viruses. You cannot "catch" a cold due to transmitting something theoretical.
Correct. We may not know exactly what is there, but we know something is there and something is happening. The inability to prove every last tiny detail is not proof that every piece of knowledge gathered so far is invalid.
Prove it.
Electron microscopic photos of coronaviruses paired with DNA analysis establishing virus family. New infectious disease with previously unseen symptoms, sharing majority DNA profile with corona viruses. People spreading the disease faster than corona virus previously known to spread. More people dying, higher chance of death if the new disease is contracted.
Real does not mean theoretical.
No, but theoretical does not mean unreal either. Operating on the best information we have it the rational thing to do, expecting absolute knowledge before acting means you can never act. We are not omnipotent like God.
If you can't isolate and/or observe it, it isn't real.
It has been isolated and observed, directly and indirectly, just not in the arbitrary way you insist it must be. Again, go isolate and observe a black hole. If it isn't real, whatever it is, what the fuck is the gigantic gravity source that our entire galaxy is orbiting? It is laughable to say that just because we lack perfect information about something that it is not real. Truly ridiculous.
Prove that a virus is the cause of any disease on earth, and prove that any virus has ever been proven to be infectious.
That's been proven a thousand times, just not by the arbitrary standards you pretend it must be.
You seem to be fond of throwing around generalities and assurances but seem to lack on the actual evidence.
You've yet to even pretend to have evidence. You literally assert that your argument is correct based on blanket dismissal of the evidence I present to you.
If you want to claim the virus is real and infectious, provide your evidence.
I've provided all I am going to. If you care about it you can go research my claims for yourself, I will not spend my time doing homework for you.
Not really. Calling it monomorphic is a straw man. Modern medicine knows very well that cells can change states, bacteria have life cycle driven and environment driven variations on their forms, and that there are many more things not yet understood than understood. I am only talking about what I see from the evidence I've seen, and it is just not explained well by your theory, in my opinion.
He was certainly way ahead of his time, but he did not have modern methods of observation to see if his hypothesis was correct. We now "know" that cell and bacteria organelles have their roots in smaller, simpler, more ancient organisms, bacteria being like trucks full of these organisms and eukaryotic cells like cities full of them. Perhaps some of these organelles are indeed virus sized. However, we can also separate and analyze the genetic sequences of the organelles, and in the case of mitochondria it is done very commonly. There is no mechanism for healthy cells to generate previously nonexistent DNA sequences and explode into piles of tiny vessels of this new DNA sequence, and even if there were it would not reliably generate the same DNA sequences in many people infectiously across the whole world, sequences that can be differentiated from other similar sequences and vastly different from the DNA of healthy human cells.
That's quite a straw man. No, I do not believe that, nor does modern medicine. It is well known that diseases vary in effect from person to person, and that these viruses mutate constantly. The attempt to understand how and why it varies and how to still correctly diagnose such diseases is a big part of modern disease research. The purpose of identifying the exact cause of a particular disease is to be able to correctly cure it. Bechamp was as much a proponent of identifying the root cause as anyone, he just had a different theory about it.
This is simply not supported by the evidence. Even in Bechamps time, bacteria were a known cause of disease. Heck, his theory was based on seeing organelles inside of bacteria. He did not have the benefit of DNA sequencing to figure out if he was correct or not. We do have that benefit today, and viral DNA species have distinct genetic codes compared to bacteria, and bacteria have many thousands of distinct species groups as well. Even if a bacteria could shrink to the size of a virus as part of its life cycle or as a reaction to its environment, it cannot alter its entire DNA chain into a completely unrelated code and remain functional. There's simply no mechanism for doing so. The genetic mechanism for a virus to be a virus, however, is well understood and apparent from evidence available.
This actually explains the variance in disease symptoms and strength very poorly, since why would different people have identical reactions to completely different disease conditions?
Well, no, bacteriophages kill bacteria, and more bacteriophages emerge from the corpse. Certainly, that is not the bacteria repairing itself.
Honestly, you are dismissing all evidence, straw manning me and modern science, and making a wild claim based on a 170 year old outdated theory. There is plenty wrong with modern medicine, it's almost all poison, but Bechamps pleomorphic theory is not the magical solution.
No I've admitted multiple times it's never been isolated in the way you mean.
Yes. Using math to overcome physical limitations is a normal and rational thing to do. Almost all astronomy is done this way.
You are quite incorrect. Tons of science works exactly this way, it is a valid avenue of progress towards better understanding. It can be wrong and people have come to wrong conclusions many times, but that is true of science done without statistical analysis as well.
Ok, go isolate and observe a black hole. If you can't I will claim that black hole doesn't exist.
You are conflating 2 different things here. The virus can be real and the international response to it can still be completely full of shit. Proving that the bureaucrats and politicians are liars does not prove that germ theory is fundamentally incorrect.
It really doesn't. And, you are straw manning again. I never said that the virus cannot be proven to exist and proven to be infectious, I said a single virus cannot be isolated. But, there's plenty of evidence that the virus is real, and that it is infectious. It is nowhere near as infectious or lethal as they claim, but it is real and is infecting people.
SARS and COVID, same virus (corona virus), different symptoms, different lethality, different infectiousness. That said, they probably did not mutate naturally, but were instead engineered.
No, I call it outdated because since then more modern technology has demonstrated that it was not correct. I think there are some elements to pleomorphism that perhaps should not have been dismissed, and that may have delayed progress by decades, but progress was made anyway. If Bechamp had the evidence we do now, I doubt very much he would come to the same conclusion he did then. Though, obviously modern medicine is not going particularly well for the health of humanity, it's still way off the rails.
I get the impression you don't know what theoretical means in a scientific context. Einstien's theory has been proven in many different ways, dismissing it as "just a theory" is not intelligent.
Nonsense. We may not know what they are, may not even be able to ever know exactly, but that something is there and happening is plainly obvious.
I'm anti-vaccine, so that argument makes no sense as a counter to what I've said. Viruses existing has nothing to do with whether vaccines are healthy or not.
Correct. We may not know exactly what is there, but we know something is there and something is happening. The inability to prove every last tiny detail is not proof that every piece of knowledge gathered so far is invalid.
Electron microscopic photos of coronaviruses paired with DNA analysis establishing virus family. New infectious disease with previously unseen symptoms, sharing majority DNA profile with corona viruses. People spreading the disease faster than corona virus previously known to spread. More people dying, higher chance of death if the new disease is contracted.
No, but theoretical does not mean unreal either. Operating on the best information we have it the rational thing to do, expecting absolute knowledge before acting means you can never act. We are not omnipotent like God.
It has been isolated and observed, directly and indirectly, just not in the arbitrary way you insist it must be. Again, go isolate and observe a black hole. If it isn't real, whatever it is, what the fuck is the gigantic gravity source that our entire galaxy is orbiting? It is laughable to say that just because we lack perfect information about something that it is not real. Truly ridiculous.
That's been proven a thousand times, just not by the arbitrary standards you pretend it must be.
You've yet to even pretend to have evidence. You literally assert that your argument is correct based on blanket dismissal of the evidence I present to you.
I've provided all I am going to. If you care about it you can go research my claims for yourself, I will not spend my time doing homework for you.