I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Grant's May 2022 Update
@ggenereux2014 Congratulations on your excellent article.
I would like to dive in some of your bibliographical resources for interest in the subject of viruses. I have followed Spanish spokesman Máximo Sandín by my interest in his output on viruses being key in evolution. ¿Could you share some authors and titles?
Thanks.
"Onion has been used as food for many centuries.2 Onion was also a popular folk remedy, being applied to tumors, made into a syrup for relieving coughs , or prepared in a tincture (using gin) to relieve "dropsy" (heart failure–related edema).3 It was considered a weaker version of garlic by many herbal practitioners. Like garlic, onion has a longstanding but unsubstantiated reputation as an aphrodisiac.4"
Just now I was reading a study about how rats had increased testosterone on onions. In another, onion juice killed germs in the eyes of rabbits.
I can't help but wonder if Grant's unchanging "prison food" diet creates a very strong status quo. Any change outside of the status quo might have that pesky problem of stirring things up. But is it good to stir things up, even if it creates (gentle) problems? I agree that non-gentle problems are good to avoid.
Regarding viruses, it certainly is interesting to think of them in a different way, and it could be that our current model of them has serious problems. However, I like to look more at the holistic level. Does this new model of thinking of Rabies help us in any way? Wouldn't we still be just as dead after a bite from a rabid animal, when the rabies travels up our nerves to our brain?
And I think Wavy said that ruminants don't like alliums, but the farmer who lived here before me told me that his cows ate the wild garlic in our field, and the taste came through to the milk, so he had to take measures against them doing it. A goat farmer I know has told me that she thinks that the goats have intuition about which medicinal herbs they need, and take them in small amounts on purpose when allowed to forage freely.
I have quoted this many times, my old naturopath would say: what plant has no medicinal qualities? And it is a trick question because the answer is they all do.
It could really be that the best day-to-day *foods* have the least medicinal qualities. I would not be surprised, given what I've come to learn about plant poisons. For instance white rice is considered by some asian cultures as the most perfect food and seems to have few herbal-remedy usages. White bread isn't very medical.
All medicines, to get any tough work done, are powerful. They are double-edged swords that can both help or possibly harm. Weapons must be used with caution.
We see a lot more usage of powerful herbs and spices in warm places where there are more germs and parasites. But we don't see zero usage of herbs and spices in northern cuisines. Just less. Is it not only important to think about what your ancestors ate traditionally, but also what people in your region ate traditionally? When in Oslo, don't live like you are in Mumbai (and vice versa)?
I mostly agree with what @lil-chick said and wonder with what frequency Grant ate onions when they caused him trouble. Maybe something like onions could be good to us if we eat it once in a while but not on continuous basis. And here we go again into the dilemma "can something be good in small enough amount and toxic in greater?" In my case I think red onions cause me dry eyes, but probably not the white variety.
Also the bad news is that even having a liver most probably totally void of retinoids doesn't give you a protection against plants toxicity.
The virus model seems to me no less plausible than the mainstream one.
Hi @michael2,
RE: bibliographical resources for interest in the subject of viruses
Most of my conclusions about viruses are primarily from me looking at the fundamentals of it and just simply applying good old fashioned logical thinking to it. So, my conclusions are not based on what other people have written about.
But, surprisingly, what I’m claiming today about viruses just being harmful proteins was indeed the established and consensus understanding of it in the medical sciences up until ~ 1950. Then, I’m assuming, the pharma guys figured out you can’t make money off it unless you can call these particles “germs” and scare the hell out of the general public with them.
The work from Dr. Stefan Lanka is excellent, and pretty much echoes my understanding of it. Here’s a good summary of his research.
https://greatreject.org/dr-stefan-lanka-claims-about-viruses-are-false/
Then, for some additional understanding of it please check out this patent by HHS for their “virus like particles”.
Virus Like Particles
https://techtransfer.cancer.gov/availabletechnologies/e-264-2011
These are man-made proteins that act and behave just like real / natural so-called “viruses.” So, what’s the difference between man-made “virus-like particles” and natural real “viruses” ? Of course, there’s not much at all. They are both just proteins that start a chain reaction, and a chain reaction that’s completely expected. That’s because what do cells normally do with mRNA? They weave together new proteins from it.
Then let's apply a little math to the problem:
A mammalian cell may contain as many as 10 million ribosomes, and it can devote up to 60% of its energy to constructing them from RNA and 80 different types of proteins.
There are millions of protein factories in every cell. Surprise ...
https://microbenotes.com › apoptosis
It consists of a series of biochemical changes that lead to changes in the cell's morphology or death. It results in the death of 50 to 70 billion cells per day in an average adult human being. It is also termed as 'cellular suicide' as cells undergo a highly regulated process for the programmed removal of cells from the body.
50x10^9 x 10^6 = 50^16
That’s 500,000 Trillion RNA containing particles being released into the bloodstream EVERY DAY! To some researchers it's like: OMG, look at all these “viruses”!!!
Not surprisingly, the rate of this daily 'cellular suicide' increases significantly as we age.
Here’s an excellent presentation on What is a virus:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/j4y0c4CpepX9/
So, my own thinking on it is not really new, nor unique.
What does Grant's "virus model" answer that the existing model doesn't answer?
It looks like I'm going to have to break this down piece by piece for people here...
"...viruses are not “alive”, and never ever become “alive”. Therefore, they are most certainly not parasites or pathogens."
The existing model doesn't say that viruses are alive. A pathogen is disease-causing agent, there is nothing in the definition that says it has to be alive.
"They don’t and can’t “evolve” or mutate."
Viruses contain genetic material in the form of RNA or DNA, as do living organisms, which is subject to random mutation when it gets replicated, just like it is in living organisms. So, yes, viruses can and will mutate and are subject to the same basic forces of natural selection as living organisms. How do you think we wind up with all the unique genetic strains/variants of the flu, and now SARS-COV-2?
"They consume no food, nor energy, nor resources."
They may not "consume" external resources in the sense that they bring them into a body like a living organism does to "digest" and convert those resources into new chemical configurations, but they do result in resource use in the host when the host's cells replicate the RNA and/or DNA of the virus. Again, they are not considered to be alive, and therefore the lack of internalizing external resources is not a fault in the existing model.
"They can’t and don’t ever reproduce themselves."
Correct, they are dependent on their host's cells for replication of their RNA/DNA. This is not a fault in the existing model.
"They have no locomotion, no organelles, no respiration, etc, etc."
This does not refute the existence of viruses, which are mobilized and spread from host to host via respiration and fluid ejection.
"They have no life force, no will, no intent."
These are not necessary for the existence of replicable RNA/DNA. How do you think life on earth started from nothing but a soup of elements? (And please don't go down the creationism path with this...)
"And, contrary to a recent statement from a very prominent public health official they are not “clever”. They actually have the same intelligence as a rock. Therefore, they are not, and cannot be, out to get us."
Since when was cleverness or intelligence a necessity for reproduction of RNA/DNA? Are single-celled organisms "intelligent"? Are worms "clever"? There's an awful lot of them around...a lot more of them than people by my last calculations. A lot of them inside people, using people's resources, kind of like, uh, a pathogenic organism?
"They are also not out to perpetuate their own “species”, because they are not a “species”, nor any life form. They are not living entities even by the wildest stretch of the imagination."
Again, you don't have to prove that something has intent or is "alive" in order for it to replicate (origin of life on earth from basic elements that had no intent of replicating).
"The key understanding is that all so-called viruses are manufactured by cells; and almost all of them in our bodies were made by our own cells. Therefore, viruses never “replicate” themselves,"
True. They use the host for self-replication. This is not a fault in the current model.
"...and they don’t hijack or trick the cell into doing it for them. They are simply proteins assembled by our own cells."
They don't need to "hijack or trick" the cell, depending on your usage of those words. The virus gets into the host cell, and the host cell mistakenly replicates the viral RNA/DNA because the cell is programmed (without "thinking") to replicate RNA/DNA that occurs inside the cell.
"However, some of these proteins can harm us. They are ones that contain defectively structured mRNA proteins."
And what would cause these so-called "defectively structured" mRNA proteins in some cells of a person and not others, in some individuals and not others, in some populations but not others, in some particular species and not others? Grant's model opens up way more questions than it answers. This is speculation that doesn't get us anywhere.
"These are usually strands of bad RNA that the cell has decided is too defective to use. These defective garbage proteins (RNA molecules) are potentially so dangerous that they can’t be discarded without first putting them into a protective wrapper. Much like with the RBP that’s used to protect cells from vA’s toxicity. Thus, these protective wrappers are the famous protein capsids surrounding most “viruses.” But, given the right circumstances and conditions some of these proteins can start a chain-reaction, and we might get sick from it running out of control for too long."
This is pure speculation and does not provide a better explanation of anything than the existing model.
"There’s more to it of course. Since most harmful “viruses” are just defectively made messenger proteins we need to understand what causes the defective mRNA proteins in the first place. Well, since it is now established that retinoic acid can, and does, fracture DNA it should be one of the prime suspects. There’s no question there are other toxins and environmental hazards to blame sometimes too. But, the key takeaway here is that for the most part “viruses” don’t cause disease. Rather, it’s the direct opposite. Disease causes “viruses” to be created."
So every single incidence of viral harm is actually a case of a diseased body imploding? Every single person who has lived in history and acquired a cold and fought the cold off, or acquired the flu and fought the flu off, in a matter of days, is diseased one day and not diseased the next day? Not only that, but they are then resistant to a particular set of Grant's misstructured proteins going forward in time, but not other sets of those proteins? How do you explain the different immune response to different viral strains? How do you explain the efficacy of vaccines? This is an absurdly large number of things that still require explanation under Grant's model that are already well explained by the existing model.
"To use a more concrete example, let’s say someone gets diagnosed with hepatitis. Doctors using the now infamous PCR test will usually find a large number of “viruses” and claim the person has acquired a “viral infection” and that infection has caused the disease. But, no, that’s not it at all. The slowly developing liver disease with its corresponding massive number of damaged and dying cells is causing these cells and cell fragments to produce the “viruses.” Viruses are the artifacts of the diseased tissue."
There are other more robust ways of diagnosing viral infection that came before the recent use of the PCR test for Covid...this an obvious strawman argument.
"Sometimes these proteins can be transferred between people and that can start a chain reaction in certain vulnerable people. However, we don’t ever really get “infected” with the “virus”. Rather we get contaminated by other people’s defective proteins."
This doesn't offer any additional explanation beyond the existing model and is pure speculation. Prions (later used by Grant as an analogy for these misshapen proteins) don't get passed from human to human (except possibly through cannibalism), and they're extremely rare in the first place, which is a clue as how to rare it is for truly misshapen proteins to be generated and cause harm.
"...It’s not random mutations driving our evolution. Rather it’s our life experiences that’s programming the genetic code in our offspring. The driving mechanism of that programming is via “virus” encapsulated messages. So, when it comes to truly understanding viruses our current medical science is in the absolute stone age. I’ve only scratched the surface of it here."
Wrong. It is random mutations, in combination with the forces of natural selection, that is driving our evolution. "Life experiences" are precisely the medium by which natural selection acts on genes...if you have a "life experience" of maiming your reproductive organs before you successfully reproduce, your genes are not going to be perpetuated, and therefore people who are good at not destroying their reproductive organs will be the ones to replicate themselves and their genes. Grant has suddenly jumped from claiming every virologist in existence is an idiot, to claiming that every evolutionary biologist in existence is an idiot...hmmm.
"But, obviously, big pharma needs to keep the myth of “scary and deadly viruses” alive to stoke endless fear and boost endless massive profits from their vaccines for them."
This is about the only thing in the entire post I can partly agree with.
"Bottom line, for the most part, “viruses” are a giant scam."
The probability of this is approximately zero.
"But, surprisingly, what I’m claiming today about viruses just being harmful proteins was indeed the established and consensus understanding of it in the medical sciences up until ~ 1950."
In 1953, Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA for the first time. Following that, the first fully sequenced genome was reportedly that of a virus in 1977.
You've got it flipped: medicines (aka plant compounds) cause harm, but could possibly help. Tell me one "medication" you know of that doesn't have a list of "side effects".
I used to take peppermint oil capsules and drink ginger tea because they were supposed to help with IBS. I stupidly never actually looked into the mechanisms behind that idea until recently. You know what peppermint does? It temporarily disturbs muscle function by forcing relaxation (i.e. paralysis) of the muscle. It obviously doesn’t just paralyze the subsection of muscle that is spasming though, it affects anything it comes into contact with in the digestive tract, which is why peppermint causes heartburn in many people…it messes with the sphincter muscles on either end of the stomach. You need your alimentary tract muscles to contract properly in order to move food and waste along. And you know what doesn’t like peppermint? Herbivores.
Ginger tea is supposed to aid digestion. How does it do this? By promoting bile production and release. Why does it promote bile production and release? Because the compounds in ginger are toxic to the body and the body wants that shit out, and it gets it out via the bile. Your body knows how to make an appropriate amount of bile on its own…it doesn’t need ginger to do it. Ginger is also used in “pro-motility” supplements. You know why it promotes motility? Because it’s pissing off your intestines and the body wants it out! And you know what doesn’t like ginger? Herbivores.
You can make a list like this for every plant “medicine” out there. The doesn’t need to be hacked, it needs to be given real nutrients to be healthy, and it benefits more from avoiding parasites in the first place than constantly consuming toxic plant compounds in order to kill them. Note the “unsubstantiated” part of the quote you included. And did the rats need more testosterone, or was it elevated above normal levels by onions?
That’s an interesting anecdote about the cows eating wild garlic. I don’t doubt that some animals have figured out they can kill parasites by eating certain things. Presumably the cows were eating the leaves/shoots, which would contain far fewer defensive compounds than the root/bulb. We also don’t know what other forage was available to the cows…maybe they wouldn’t have eaten the garlic if there was better stuff available. Or maybe they were eating the garlic because the other forage was making them sick. Lastly, we know that it doesn’t take much of that garlic compound to convey the flavor we associate with it, so the cows may have eaten just tiny amounts of the garlic but the compound is so potent it still wound up flavoring the milk. I can’t tell you how many times my wife has eaten something with garlic, claims to not know she ate anything with garlic (meaning the amount in the food must have been extremely small so that she didn’t notice it), but good lord can I smell it on her breath! I’ve become so sensitive to that smell since removing plant foods from my diet that I have to turn an air purifier on to be able to sleep next to her after she’s eaten a helping of garlic…it's nauseating.
If you have parasites or dysbiosis, sure, have at the garlic or some potent herb. But most of us are living in conditions where we don’t have to worry about parasites, and dysbiosis can usually be cured by removing plants, not adding them. So there’s really not much biological reason for most of us to eat crazy plant compounds.
Day-to-day foods have the least medicinal quality because they are foods, whereas medicines are toxins. That’s why medicines kill germs, because they’re toxic to life. That’s why herbivores avoid the worst plant compounds, because those compounds kill the bacteria the herbivores harbor and rely on for the conversion of unusable shitty plant fibers to nourishing short chain fatty acids. Which is also why humans aren’t supposed to eat a bunch of plants…because we don’t harbor enough bacteria in our digestive tract to efficiently convert shitty plant fibers to something our bodies can use.
Interesting examples. I was thinking about psyllium husk powder to increase pooping (and hence vitamin A detox) on a carnivore diet. What do you think about that idea?