Letter to Dr Sam Bailey
In relation to viruses as "Obligate Intracellular Parasites" and their "Pandemic" potential
Hi Sam,
I think your main thesis is more or less accurate. However it is only accurate with regards to the definition of viruses as so-called "obligate intracellular parasites". The genomic and proteomic patterns associated with viruses are clearly real, even though not properly characterized. In fact they are important components of the ecosystem that have a necessary biological function such as the building of networks of information transfer within it, among others.
Same as bacteria and fungi, or even components of our own immune system, when a non-equilibrium state is presented (mainly triggered by lack of clean water, lack of food and environmental toxins, as well as exposure to the elements and many other imbalances that can arise via dysregulation of the myriad of biological pathways that are required for life) they can be found in association with a disease course and even behave as a harmful element due to lack of information transfer, which is needed for the whole ecosystem to function properly, even if they are not a disease-causing agent in and of themselves.
The problem with your approach of "viruses have never being isolated" is that it will never work. Exosomal communication is a clear example of why that is. I truly believe that you will advance a lot more if you focus on the absolutely preposterous claims of epidemiology in relation to the R_0 (Basic Reproduction Number) and the SIR model (Susceptible, Infectious, Recovered). Those notions are solely based on superstition.
I am not writing this letter to promote myself but to clarify my point you can read my articles:
Our Misleading and Superstitious notion of Contagion and the Fraudulent Basic Reproduction Number in Epidemiology (+ New Perspectives)
https://agustinsanchezcobos.substack.com/p/the-misleading-and-superstitious
Reply to Dr. Byram Bridle
In relation to the statement: "A highly transmissible virus that is in 12 people sprinkled around the world would be capable of spreading rapidly."
https://agustinsanchezcobos.substack.com/p/reply-to-dr-byram-bridle
COVID-19: A Novel Illness?
My Informed Opinion on the issue, given recent discussions on the topic
https://agustinsanchezcobos.substack.com/p/covid-19-a-novel-illness
You may also find useful these articles:
Alternative Hypothesis to Communicable Disease-Causing Agents & Notes on Virology in relation to the No-Virus People
In response to Steve Kirsch's newsletter in friendly discussion with Patrick Gunnels
https://agustinsanchezcobos.substack.com/p/alternative-hypothesis-to-communicable
The End of The No-Virus People
Single-Virus Genomics
https://agustinsanchezcobos.substack.com/p/the-end-of-the-no-virus-people
PS: We have a lot more in common than you may think in our approach to this contagion insanity, so I hope we can help each other in building a solid enough foundation against this, using different tools and coming from different perspectives on the issue at hand. The more encompassing our language is, the more effective it will be, that is my main objective. The main thesis though, is what matters, viruses (such as bacteriophages, which I believe you agree they exist) are not AT ALL obligate intracellular parasites harboring pandemic potential that can sparkle a catastrophic global event. That is a rejection of nature, a rejection of health, and a corner stone for the construction of a totalitarian society ruled by superstition and fear (like most Middle Age societies were). We cannot allow ourselves to enter into a new Dark Age for Humanity again.
As a last thought, I would like to thank you and your partner, as well as Tom Cowan and Stefan Lanka among others in your team for your extensive work.
Last Note:
The key is in the notion of contagion via transmission chains. As viruses are ubiquitous throughout the ecosystem, such mechanism cannot possibly be responsible for any illness. Only via waves of non-equilibrium states that move within biological pathways that are already present, so-called "outbreaks" can occur. They will always be localized and dependent on environmental conditions, primarily related to contamination, poisoning, lack of resources, lack of clean water, extreme weather events, radiation... Therefore the "spread" is not of a pathogen, it is the spread of environmental factors that will dysregulate important building blocks of the ecosystem, such as fungi, bacteria, components of the immune system, exosomal communication pathways, pheromonal communication pathways... and many other proteomic and genomic signaling molecular pathways (this is were viruses belong, as they are permanently working to regulate several biological functions).
I agree that given this perspective we could stop calling them viruses. However to change language is something extremely difficult. It is a lot better to understand that such biological structures are functional elements of the ecosystem, they are NOT pathogens and the notion of "obligate intracellular parasites" is preposterous and clearly dangerous, given this whole COVID-19 Mass Psychogenic Illness event that has taken place.
With regard to the possibility of Biological Agents:
The thing about biological agents is that they do not spread beyond the second to third layer of direct exposure. If that happened, it only happened in given places for a given period of time. The ecosystem is very resilient to non-equilibrium states, it cannot last.
[To clarify] Short reflection on the spread of Biological Agents. Perspectives on the notion of Transmission Chain & Disease-Causing Agents:
(Link to my comment to Dr. Sam Bailey)
https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/viroliegy-with-mike-stone/comment/46051353
(Important) It seems that my comment was deleted. I tried to know why but, it seems that I am blocked for some reason.
