From: D. C. Sessions on
Carole wrote:

> Obviously you are one who believes in "one germ, one disease". This is
> known as monomorphism.
> The opposite of monomorphism is pleomorphism which is where a bacteria or
> germ can change forms or mutate according to its environment.

.... which has never been observed in reality. Minor obstacle, that.

>>>So how would you know that a virus can't mutate into a bacteria and vice
>>>versa, since its never been shown before?
>>
>> Has there ever been a case of a cat mutating into a cockroach? How
>> would you know that it can't happen since it's never been shown
>> before?
>
> No, not a cat into a cockroach.

Cats and cockroaches have a lot more in common than bacteria and
viruses.

> However, over many generations animals do mutate to suit their
> environments. And the lifecycle of a virus or germ is very short and they
> can do many generations relatively quickly.

Ummm ... yeah. There's a microbiologist who has been serially
culturing bacteria for more than 20 years, and he's managed to
nudge them towards being able to metabolize citrate instead of
their original carbohydrates as an energy source. Compared to
larger species, that's extremely fast.

It's also orders of magnitude less change than you're imagining
and it's still orders of magnitude less time.

>> Here's a hint - a virus isn't the same sort of creature as a
>> bacterium, so a better analogy would be a cat mutating into a cabbage.
>
> I don't think anybody really knows what a virus is.

You're projecting your own ignorance. We not only know what a virus
is, we have complete 100% structural models of them down to the individual
atoms. We know their genetic sequences, we know the coats that they
have around their genetic material, we know the proteins that they
cause invaded cells to produce, and we know how they get into their
targeted cells.

We've actually produced 100% synthetic viruses from their genetic sequences.

Now, I won't claim that there's nothing to learn (there's ALWAYS something
new to learn) but describing that level of knowledge as "(nobody) knows what
a virus really is" is a bit of a stretch.

> It appears to be an inert little piece of dna that doesn't come to life
> until it gets into an a certain environment.
> Bacterias mutate. I find it hard to believe that a bacteria can mutate
> into a fungus though, but maybe it can.
> One thing they all have in common is that they are very small and we can't
> see them with the naked eye.
> This is where a microscope that could look at their lifecycle without
> killing them would come in handy.

Not remotely as handy as it would be in industry. Alas, industry
has this funny requirement that their equipment actually *work* -- which
is why the magic microscope isn't revolutionizing the microfabrication
business.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
From: Carole on

"D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:mmrer5-hn3.ln1(a)news.lumbercartel.com...
> Carole wrote:
>
>> Obviously you are one who believes in "one germ, one disease". This is
>> known as monomorphism.
>> The opposite of monomorphism is pleomorphism which is where a bacteria or
>> germ can change forms or mutate according to its environment.
>
> ... which has never been observed in reality. Minor obstacle, that.

No, not entirely. There is the Rife microscope could see living organisms.

carole
www.cellsalts.net




From: Carole on

"D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:u3rer5-ca3.ln1(a)news.lumbercartel.com...
> Carole wrote:
>
>> "The germ is nothing the soil is everything" means that the bacteria only
>> change into nasty forms when the environment gets toxic. If the internal
>> milieu is clean the bacteria assume a very benign form.
>
> That's a lovely notion, Carole. It has a few theoretical problems at
> the biological level (as in, forget genetics and biochemistry, which
> are totally incompatible with the notion) but the biggie is really
> much, much simpler: if you start out with the "benign form" and only
> the "benign form" then no matter what you do to the "environment" you
> never get anything else. Full stop.

The benign form of what ...of a microbe?

Apparently microbes mutate into more virulent forms as the internal milieu
degenerates.
And since you can't observe a live microbe without a Reich microscope, you
can't say its not true.
The current microscopes than stain microbes, kill them and so you can't do
any experiments into the matter -- unfortunate that.

carole
www.conspiracee.com


>
> This little experiment has been repeated millions of times, including
> my secondary school biology lab -- in other words, this is one of
> the relatively rare cases where I have actually carried out the
> experiment myself and so your usual "think for yourself" attack ain't
> gonna work.
>
> --
> | The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
> | chance that someone will see the light. |
> +- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+


From: Richard Schultz on
In article <RK1Gk.3248$sc2.822(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Carole <hubbca(a)iimetro.com.au> wrote:

: And since you can't observe a live microbe without a Reich microscope, you
: can't say its not true.

When I took biology in 9th grade and looked through a regular, old-fashioned
run-of-the-mill microscope at what sure *looked* like living microbes, what
was it that I actually *was* looking at?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr(a)mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."