I wonder if anyone has researched bubonic fever plague recently? Saw something about AIDS and bubonic plague needing a similar immune response. It attacks the lymphatic system. Kind of weird because the plague is a bacillus, and HIV is claimed to be a virus. Something about there were totally immune people, descended from a village that had a low death rate when the plague arrived. There were stories of undertakers that never even got sick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfRJEm96Lgo The video reeks of propaganda, promoting the idea that scientists are 'now' using computers to look at people's DNA, and finding miraculous mutations. Isn't science and technology great?

Anyway that story happened in the early nineties. I remember hearing things about people working with DNA, plague samples and mutations that protected the population and only recently stumbled upon that work cited. I remember rolling my eyes at the time: What could possibly go wrong, I said, reminded of a Smallpox escape from a lab in the UK, in the seventies.

Given that since then we hear that there are at least three HIV components in the SARS/Cov lines, and the Furin site that is a signature of lab viruses, the thought is machiavellian: Are we looking at some scientists reviving a milder version, or descendent of, bubonic plague by a different name? It arguably was the most deadly plague ever in recorded history. Are they looking for genetic mutations that are resistant to viruses? People who are descended from survivor villagers with the relevant mutation are immune to AIDS.

HMMMM. Did HIV evolve into MERS, SARS, Covid and beyond, since those discoveries? There is a bat connection to bubonic plague BTW. Remember the B-rated horror movies in the eighties of vampire bat-caves and plagues?

The limitation is that viruses are claimed to be different to bacilli. However, this throws up hypotheses that some may want/need to investigate. How different are viruses from bacilli? They behave in a similar way and immune systems have predictable reactions.

It was explained to me as a kid that there is not much of a difference. Bacilli, Viruses, Fungi: They all have similar but also varied structures. They have a similar effect on humans, so whatever. We were told that one could combat bacilli with antibiotics, but not so for viruses (This is now not true BTW, I have read of antibiotic prescriptions being given for Covid, but that needs further research). Structurally, one can have a virus with propelling tails or tentacles or plugs. Bacilli are more generally akin to one-celled animals, shaped round or pill-like, but not really.

Further to the incomplete explanation according to the lexicon of the times. Viruses were more like parasites that like to live in their host and be carried around and they evolve to become less virulent so that they can successfully replicate without the nuisance of their hosts being eliminated quickly. While bacilli are less choosey, because they can also spread from the dead.

I am still vague on that explanation and reading medical articles about it makes me none the wiser. Both Viruses and Bacilli are described in similar ways. That is still an unsatisfactory answer. How does one define and categorise these microbiological structures, and has it been done correctly, or via some arbitrary measure such as the way they look under the microscope?

Anyway, just a shower thought.