 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Herpes / December 2004Question: can viruses multiply in cold environment?
I think it's a very interesting question, since the major factor that this virus uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or its considered in both areas, as a sum) It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc). In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying? Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication it would allow our immune system at all to recover and be able to completely unable the viruses from continuing to multiply? To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago in a mountain lake and cold river several times and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since. I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go. Really. For oral herpes, applying ice cubs its probably the best choice to go with. No doubt it makes a huge impact on viruses this low temperature environment. Perl von Molson > I think it's a very interesting question, > since the major factor that this virus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in > a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc). We do OK in Canada. :-) Aren't you forgetting that viruses are not truly 'living things'. They utilize the cell's replicative properties in a sort of parasitic manner, actually copying themselves into new copies of your cells. > In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) > water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this > assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying? If you haven't killed the cell that the virus lives in, then you probably haven't killed the virus. That is not to say that the method is without merit. Read on. > Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication > it would allow our immune system at all to recover and > be able to completely unable the viruses from > continuing to multiply? Viruses typically exist in two forms, lysogenic and lytic, which is fancy talk for viruses that live within a cell without harming the cell or a virus that is potentiated to cause cell death. An outbreak is an example of the latter. It is reasonable to try to find ways of keeping the virus in a lysogenic stage. This is probably the way various anti-virals work...somehow reversing or halting the cascade of events that occurs when some sort of trigger event causes the virus to go postal. In HSV2, there is the migration of the virus along the ganglia and the subsequent surface symptoms and shedding. A greater knowledge of the life cycle of the virus is necessary to start considering how to rid it from the body. I don't think anybody knows enough about it to accomplish this. On the other hand, finding ways to avoid cell destruction/symptomatic shedding is just trial and error. > To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago > in a mountain lake and cold river several times > and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since. You probably scared the virus back to a more hospitable place. :-) > > I think it's a very interesting question, > > since the major factor that this virus [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We do OK in Canada. :-) same here (tell me about it...) > Aren't you forgetting that viruses are not truly 'living things'. > They utilize the cell's replicative properties in a sort of parasitic > manner, actually copying themselves into new copies of your cells. Yes, I am aware of all these facts; > > In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) > > water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > probably haven't killed the virus. That is not to say that the method > is without merit. Read on. Here is the thing: the cell you are talking about it's actually 2 kinds of cells; of is neural cells and the others are skin cells. Well, in the skin cells, the antivirals work pretty well (as long as they are...good antivirals) not necessarily killing the cell host. That would be the case for the virions located in the neurons. > > Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication > > it would allow our immune system at all to recover and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > events that occurs when some sort of trigger event causes the virus to > go postal. It can be some hormonal changes in our bodies that is causing the herpes to become active out of latency state. Which hormons are eventually involved, I do not know. > In HSV2, there is the migration of the virus along the ganglia and the > subsequent surface symptoms and shedding. A greater knowledge of the > life cycle of the virus is necessary to start considering how to rid > it from the body. I don't think anybody knows enough about it to > accomplish this. You know what? You would be surprised of the huge ammount of the lack of knowledge there is about herpes virus. Basically, if I have considered around 50-100 questions there would not be aswers for any of them. Every time I read about something in particular, I get the answer: "we do not know how this works etc" That is why I started treating myself using my own intuition and experience. > On the other hand, finding ways to avoid cell destruction/symptomatic > shedding is just trial and error. That's the ideea behind the natural treatments; for example, lemon balm cream does not kill any cells; same for other types of natural remedies; you cannot say the same thing about the prescription drugs, such as acyclovir, etc. Not only there are chances for testicular atrofiation, cancer and other genetic diseases, but also the cells will be killed as well if using prescription drugs, in some reported cases (for the former and always eventually for the latter) > > To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago > > in a mountain lake and cold river several times > > and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since. > > You probably scared the virus back to a more hospitable place. :-) Hopefully one day "he'll" totally forget the path to the skin. Perl von Molson > since the major factor that this virus > uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new > viruses; I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or > its considered in both areas, as a sum) Its considered virion by virion. The neuron replication is a bit weird as its not a normal lytic infection (to preserve the reservoir). Also the ability to multiply is not quite the right term, as the ability is reliant on host machinery. > It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in > a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc). Erm to be in equal quantities both flippant and precise thats not true - I raise penguins in the Antarctic as the example - in fact a number of warmblooded creatures (including us). There is however an element of cheating by bringing your own heat supply. To a more relevant example some bacteria CAN divide etc in pretty cold (and hot) environments. The issue you are getting towards is actually twofold. There is the issue about life requiring the liquid phase (ie water, not ice) for its reactions. This is relevant only if you go below freezing point. The other issue is the fact that most enzymes are heavily optimised to a fairly narrow temperature range and their chemistry slows down vastly if you drop below it - since most organisms live in the 20-40 range thats where most are set. However its slowing chemistry down. For more complex organisms like us the slowing down can have serious consequences as systems are unable to function sufficiently - over time for us it means death by exposure. For less complex organisms then they tend to slow down but not necessarily die from it. For viruses in some respects it helps preserve viability to a point, after that while their viability does drop but its chemical breakdown so again its retarded. > In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) > water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this > assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying? If you have a cell culture then the lower temperature will reduce the viral replication speed for that time but it won't halt it permanently, bring it back up to temperature and it will pick up again. You could chill it sufficiently long for the host cells to die but thats not desirable on a large scale if you transfer the idea to whole body. It will have diddly effect on the virus - if Im transporting virus suspensions around for a shoprt period and don't want to put them through a freeze thaw cycle then I'll chill them to that sort of temperature to maintain the titre of the stock in question for an hour or so. In a human body you don't have to go that far in and the temperature will already have increased closer to the core 37.5 degrees and you have a continuous outflow of heat from the core anyway to warm things. And you won't touch the latent site in anyway shape or form either as far as temperature fluctation goes either. > Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication > it would allow our immune system at all to recover and > be able to completely unable the viruses from > continuing to multiply? The immune system is going to recover nothing in that timescale. It also assumes there is something wrong with the immune system for an outbreak to occur which isnt true...while immune defects will help kick them off the virus lifecycle is designed to get around the existence of an intact system and does so routinely in immunocompetent...the fact lesions develop and then resolve indicates its working. The immune system also never goes near the latent reservoir either. > > To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago > in a mountain lake and cold river several times > and I haven't had any herpes OB down there since. > I am pretty damn sure that's the way to go. > Really. I've dived into a pretty damn cold lake in Norway myself fed off glacier melt, and Geirangerfjord wasn't the warmest of water either I had a tendency to swim underwater quite a bit when I was younger. Still had the odd cold sore in the years after those events. Sorry it doesnt really hold up the way you describe it....especially in a warmblooded mammal. > For oral herpes, applying ice cubs its probably the best choice to go with. To do enough damage to the virus you will trash your own body cells, or simply not supply enough cold to anything to either. A number of people here have talked about using ice IIRC for pain relief in outbreaks so I lean towards ice not harming either virus or cells on the scale you seem to be suggesting....and plenty of people who have tested the idea and still get outbreaks to look at. > No doubt it makes a huge impact on viruses this low temperature environment. Big doubts, in my opinion, Im afraid. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 Tim, I'm still not sure I've quite got it. Perl Molson wrote: >>I do not know whether on the skin or in the neuron or >> its considered in both areas, as a sum) Tim F writes: >Its considered virion by virion. The neuron replication is a bit weird as >its not a normal lytic infection (to preserve the reservoir). Lemme see...... The latent infection, residing in the nucleus of a nerve cell in the ganglia, replicates from time to time but the cell it is in is not destroyed, so the infection remains. The new offspring (for lack of a better term) are able to remain within the cell as they travel to the skin's surface because this particular nerve cell is elongated in shape and, itself, extends to the surface. Incidentally, it's because they travel within the nerve cell that the new virions are able to evade the immune system which can't reach them in there. .... how am I doing so far? Now. Once the original stream of offspring reach the surface, they leave the nerve cell and enter surrounding skin cells where THEY (the original offspring) replicate. But this time, the cell they are in is destroyed in the replication process. It's at this time that the second batch of offspring (offspring of the offspring) is "shed" to the surface of the skin where they collect and await the possibility of a transfer to an unsuspecting new host. So the cycle depends on two separate replication events. The first one within the nerve cell doesn't destroy the cell. The second one, in a skin cell at the surface, *does* destroy the cell. Am I getting anywhere close to following how this cycle works?? Thanks, M2 > Tim, > I'm still not sure I've quite got it. [snip] > Am I getting anywhere close to following how this cycle works?? Pretty much spot on. There is some cell to cell direct spread that owuldn't have to be lytic, and some virus production from cells that deliberately hold up programmed cell death to provide the usual exceptions but thats the basic idea. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > Tim, > > I'm still not sure I've quite got it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tim So the virus is travelling in two directions? Retrograde from the skin cells and anterograde in secondary outbreaks, right? Now, this is where there seems to be some debate. There must be significant replication of virus at the basal ganglia to facilitate a secondary outbreak at the surface, yet little is mentioned about this mechanism in the sensory neuron nucleus. The focus seems to be more upon using HSV for gene therapy as it so effectively delivers a payload to the neurons...maybe replace missing transmitter substance or whatever. And also, I haven't read anything about direct cell to cell spread. How is this facilitated? Are there channels in the lipid bilayer of an intact cell that allow for movement of the virus outside of the cytoplasm? I thought that the whole basis of cell to cell contact was based upon the theory of lysis and release of viral particles. Is this a mechanism involved in asymptomatic shedding of viral particles? >So the virus is travelling in two directions? Not in the cycle I just described. Or maybe I'm missing the point of your question. But no, it's only traveling in one direction. That is, from the base of the spine (for a genital infection) to the surface of the skin. Note, the "cycle" I described was actually only half of the whole thing. However, that half, the second half, periodically repeats itself so I guess you could consider that a cycle of its own. The only time I can see virus going in the other direction is during the transmission part of the cycle which I didn't mention before. That's when newly acquired virus travels from the skin surface of a perviously uninfected person, to it's safe haven in the ganglia at the base of the spine. But that only happens once.... when a person is initially infected. After that, virus is traveling only in the other direction. At least that's the way I understand it. M2 > >So the virus is travelling in two directions? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > M2 Are you serious about it? I have never, ever consider it to be this way. I've always thought that the virus can travel from the skin back to the ganglia and then from the ganglia to the skin, via neuronal travel mechanisms using its spikes to attach themselves. There is multiplication in the neuron (much less ammont) and mostly in the skin areas. What would be the reason that the virus only at the beginning would travel towards the ganglia? The immune system that doesn't allow viruses to enter from the skin cells to the neuron cells? Why would be different the other way around? beatadje writes: >What would be the reason that the virus only at the beginning would >travel towards the ganglia? On a previously UNinfected individual, the virus enters the neuron at the skin surface, then travels to, and enters, the nucleus at the base of the spine. Once the virus has set up its latent infection in the nucleus, it never leaves. Only its "offspring" leave. And when they do, they can cause either symptomatic shedding (an outbreak) or asymptomatic shedding. >The immune system that doesn't allow viruses >to enter from the skin cells to the neuron cells? I don't know whether the immune system stops new virus from returning to the nucleus or whether that's just part of the hsv process. But it wouldn't matter anyway whether or not a second virion found its way down a neuron that's already infected. >Why would be different the other way around? If a second virion, at a later date, followed the same neuron down from the skin, it would find the nucleus to be already infected (day late, dollar short). Just my take on it. YMMV M2 > beatadje writes: > >What would be the reason that the virus only at the beginning would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > do, they can cause either symptomatic shedding (an outbreak) or > asymptomatic shedding. //Only its "offspring" leave// Are you sure? Did you read about it? > >The immune system that doesn't allow viruses > >to enter from the skin cells to the neuron cells? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wouldn't matter anyway whether or not a second virion found its way > down a neuron that's already infected. I think it's very important actually... If you know where are the "battlefields" its easier to win the war, right? > >Why would be different the other way around? > > If a second virion, at a later date, followed the same neuron down > from the skin, it would find the nucleus to be already infected (day > late, dollar short). Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron? Man, I wish it was that easy... Perl von Molson > Just my take on it. > YMMV > M2 M2 writes: >Only its "offspring" leave// beatadje writes: >Are you sure? Yes, but I've been wrong before. >Did you read about it? I swear, I couldn't make this stuff up even if I tried. Once a virion injects its DNA into the nucleus of a neuron, it is no longer a complete and functional virion. And it can't pull all its parts back together again ... any more than Humpty Dumpty. Its DNA becomes part of the nureon's nucleus and changes the nucleus into a little virus producing factory. Granted that's an extremely simplified version of how it works but that's my understanding. >> wouldn't matter anyway whether or not a second virion found its way >> down a neuron that's already infected. >I think it's very important actually... >If you know where are the "battlefields" its easier to win the war, >right? The point though is that, if a neuron has been previously infected, the battle is already over. A second virion coming down the pike will just find itself homeless and/or harmless. >Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron? No, it means only one "infection" per neuron no matter whether it's caused by one virus or twenty. At least that's my understanding. Maybe Tim will shed some light on the question. M2 I cannot contradict what you've said, neither to agree with it; It's pretty clear I have to try to understand more about these things. I have found quite a lot of info related on jvi where also if you click on " Similar articles in this journal" there is more great informative stuff. Every single question that I am trying to understand has a puzzle in these journals that need to be put together. It's quite a task, but I guess that's the only way to do it. Perl von Molson Axonal Transport and Sorting of Herpes Simplex Virus Components in a Mature Mouse Visual System http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/77/11/6117?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULT FORMAT=&searchid=1101580821611_1866&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=4000&jo urnalcode=jvi Anterograde Transport of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 in Cultured, Dissociated Human and Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/4/1827 > M2 writes: > >Only its "offspring" leave// [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > M2 Even more, http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsv7f.html "As shown in the illustrated experiment using the rabbit eye model, during the initial, acute infection, virus replicates to high levels at the peripheral site of infection. Infection resolves and virus is cleared--usually within two weeks. During this period, virus travels axonally to the sensory nerve ganglion ennervating the site of infection. There is a period of acute infection in the ganglion; however, this resolves as the acute infection does. A fraction of neurons are left with viral DNA present in episomal( genetic unit that can multiply independently in host cells or when integrated with a chromosome = Perl's note) form. Thus, there must be a profound restriction of viral gene expression so that the cytopathic ( this means dealing with cell disease and damge = Perl's note)results of productive infection do not occur." > I cannot contradict what you've said, neither to agree with it; > It's pretty clear I have to try to understand more about these things. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > > > M2 > M2 writes: > >Only its "offspring" leave// [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the battle is already over. A second virion coming down the pike will > just find itself homeless and/or harmless. > >Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At least that's my understanding. Maybe Tim will shed some light on > the question. "It therefore appears that individual neurons can be infected by hundreds of virions originating at the body surface and still enter the latent state." http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/2/965 Perl von Molson > M2 >> Okeeey, so that means only one virus per neuron? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At least that's my understanding. Maybe Tim will shed some light on > the question. Its the basic idea, how well it holds up is a bit more open for debate, though it does seem to hold quite well. However, quite a bit harks back to the superinfection ideas from bacteriophage studies - ie the infecting virus tries to stop others coming in. I think I've heard that its been done experimentally though (superinfection that is). How much thats possible in vivo is a different matter - if the barrier is high enough it won't work in a body to any routine level but you could breach it in the lab. THere are certainly routinely more than one copy of DNA in a latent cell which is a change fromthe original ideas - quick note on the paper Perl pulled out - the important bit they are pointing out is that they demonstrate you can have multiple copies of virus infection (ie in the cell) and still have it latent - the old original idea was that multiple copies meant replication and hence the start of the infectious cycle - its not stating its multiple viruses entering - but it lacks the context to make that obvious - at least thats my reading of it). That was 99 and its really that time that the techniques were developing and used. Last person I asked who looked at this said they were the same. Where those multiple copies come from is I think up for guesswork....is it multiple viruses getting in at the same initial infection, is it generated as the virus retrogrades, or is it accumulation as the virus infection reactivates....that last I think is weakened by the paper Perl listed, since they were on the acute cycle. However I do know one person who was looking at cell copy number of HSV DNA over time and I think he said it increased. So basically its a bit of an unknown. As with anything related to latency the old ideas are having to shift a bit as it became apparent that latency is not a quiescent staet but a fairly dynamic one What you really need to do is take two tagged HSV strains, infect the two together or at time intervals and look to see whether the two strains colocalise to the same cell. I've not seen that done yet though ti might be out there.....its huge project and it down at the basic biology level rather than being an applied project. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > >So the virus is travelling in two directions? > > Not in the cycle I just described. > Or maybe I'm missing the point of your question. No, I think you answered it. > But no, it's only traveling in one direction. That is, from the base > of the spine (for a genital infection) to the surface of the skin. > Note, the "cycle" I described was actually only half of the whole > thing. However, that half, the second half, periodically repeats > itself so I guess you could consider that a cycle of its own. I am a little confused about the role of the neuron cell bodies in the production of new viral particles but if I understand correctly, the axons can be equated with the cytoplasm of a skin cell. Rather than lyse the cell, the viral particles can be manufactured in the nerve cell nucleus and can zip out to the skin cells down the axons like a kid on a waterslide. I wonder if there is a way to slow the axonal transport of newly formed viral particles from the basal ganglia? If that transport mechanism could be interrupted, there would be no such thing as a secondary infection. Of course you don't want to monkey around too much with your sensory neurons, or you won't feel anything at all down there. :-0 > The only time I can see virus going in the other direction is during > the transmission part of the cycle which I didn't mention before. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > initially infected. After that, virus is traveling only in the other > direction. Yes, I believe this is correct. Drew. > I am a little confused about the role of the neuron cell bodies in the The cell body itself isn't particularly special bar the fact it happens to be in the ganglion and it happens to contain the nucleus, where the virion gets transported and deposits the viral DNA. Its more a focus on the nucleus of the cell than the body itself. > production of new viral particles but if I understand correctly, the > axons can be equated with the cytoplasm of a skin cell. The axon is more just a specialised pseudopod/extrusion...its exceptionally long and associated with myelinating cells in the sensory nerves but at the core its a protrusion of the cell and contains, as you say, cytoplasm, cytoskeletal elements etc. Its a bit specialised so various bits in there are neuron specific. > I wonder if there is a way to slow the axonal transport of newly > formed viral particles from the basal ganglia? If that transport > mechanism could be interrupted, there would be no such thing as a > secondary infection. If you can get something specific enough, yes. You would probably want to block the virus proteins binding site for the transport system rather than the transport system itself if you could get a molecule to do that. > Of course you don't want to monkey around too much with your sensory > neurons, or you won't feel anything at all down there. :-0 Exactly... Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > So the virus is travelling in two directions? Retrograde from the > skin cells and anterograde in secondary outbreaks, right? Basically, yes. There are some very pretty movies people have made with fluorescent virus particles to show this, speed is in the micrometers per second scale...last I saw someone had their movies showing fairly clearly that there seemed ot be two transport streams possibly..though if I remember correctly it was a nonhuman virus they were looking at. > Now, this > is where there seems to be some debate. There must be significant > replication of virus at the basal ganglia to facilitate a secondary > outbreak at the surface, yet little is mentioned about this mechanism > in the sensory neuron nucleus. There is a fair amount on this stage of the lifecycle out there in pubmed. The retrograde stuff was done along time ago. THe anterograde stuff is more recent. Various people have posted a quicktime move of the lifecycle thats commonly available... > The focus seems to be more upon using HSV for gene therapy as it so > effectively delivers a payload to the neurons...maybe replace missing > transmitter substance or whatever. That is one big area. Adeno and retroviral gene therapy is a bit further advanced but herpesviruses can hit neurons specifically and non-dividing ones at that (though I think someone may have solved that for the retros...) > And also, I haven't read anything about direct cell to cell spread. > How is this facilitated? Are there channels in the lipid bilayer of > an intact cell that allow for movement of the virus outside of the > cytoplasm? Don't think its nailed down yet. THere's some work looking at how certain glycoporteins help target the virus to be shuttled to cell junctions rather than waiting for a lysis event. I'd suggest its possibly the same sort of mechanism the virus uses to get out of neurons without lysing them. There are a bunch of compounds out there being looked at to block this sort of event, dendrimers, certain polysaccharides (this is where some the red marine algae work moved to), heparan suphonated compounds etc. Some of these seem to work by getting into the spaces between cell junctions. > I thought that the whole basis of cell to cell contact was > based upon the theory of lysis and release of viral particles. Is > this a mechanism involved in asymptomatic shedding of viral particles? Not sure, I don't think anyone really is, shedding is such a pain to get a handle on due to it being relatively indetectable. It certainly could be, but the scale of shedding from an individual is a bit higher than so there is room for small numbers of lysis events to produce the virus as well as cell to cell spread and release. Biology being biology it probably uses both depending on whats working at the time. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > So the virus is travelling in two directions? Retrograde from the > > skin cells and anterograde in secondary outbreaks, right? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Tim thanks, this is helpful. if you know good internet sources of info, please share them (pubmed?). thanx again drew >thanks, this is helpful. >if you know good internet sources of info, please share them (pubmed?). thanx again >drew Ooooo, see the pretty moving pictures... http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/movieindex.html More pretty animations... http://www-ermm.cbcu.cam.ac.uk/99000393h.htm Hell, here's my other "Morphology" bookmarks... http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/Big_Virology/BVDNAherpes.html http://faculty.niagara.edu/mgallo/315f97/chris.html http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/virarch.html http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/herpes.html http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/mmi/stannard/cpe.html http://www.bartleby.com/107/200.html http://www.ohsu.edu/som-neurosurgery/neuropathicpain/sld102.htm http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/images/factsheets/shingles.gif http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvimg04z.jpg http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/hsvresrch.html Hope that helps, Mike > thanks, this is helpful. > if you know good internet sources of info, please share them (pubmed?). Pubmed is a database I've cited here sevral times, its probably worth it again. www.pubmed.com or the full URL www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed is a primary citation database that records anything attached to the Index Medicus. Also on the site are access points for various sequence databases and comparison tools but it is open access. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > since the major factor that this virus > > uses is its ability to multiply (every virus can produce 10,000 new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ability to multiply is not quite the right term, as the ability is reliant > on host machinery. Who know, maybe viruses have their own "fight or flight" type of reaction, like the rats do have, maybe they will all leave (or try to leave the "reservoir" as you called it; during a larger then usual OB can happen that it would be a step to such a situation. That is how homeopathy seems to work; homeopaths say that, if cured, after the homeopathic treatment the individuals will have greater then usual OB (of whatever the disease was). Time-dependant Changes in HSV-1 Transcript Abundance During Productive Infection http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~faculty/wagner/rnatime.html As we can see from the above link, it is pretty clear how things work on a timely basis. during the immediate early, early, late and latent infection periods. 510 minutes were considered as a reference, I reckon. OK, then, lets say, following this graphic animation that at the 20,000 virions (the corresponding moment in time), the person is immersed in a 5 degree centigrade environment, I would have to pressume that the viral infection will have a change and will resume after a great reduction. You cannot say it will continue as it would in a 20 centigrade environment. It's clear that the impact of such an imersion will be significant upon the viral infection. > > It is known that basically no living thing can procreate in > > a very cold environment (neither bacterias etc). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cheating by bringing your own heat supply. To a more relevant example > some bacteria CAN divide etc in pretty cold (and hot) environments. There are exceptions, of course, but for the types of bacterias and viruses related to herpes (those found on the skin, blood etc) such a low temperature environment will have a great impact on them. (the funny thing is that my former girlfriend was the first to came up with this ideea of cold water; she has never had herpes to my knowledge). > The issue you are getting towards is actually twofold. There is the issue > about life requiring the liquid phase (ie water, not ice) for its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > viability to a point, after that while their viability does drop but its > chemical breakdown so again its retarded. It is to my understanding the fact that the skin needs to stay healthy enough during that particular immersion in the cold water (it may be also that the immune system gets a boost during this time, it's one of the "miracles of the water", in special if oxigenated water such as a mountain water); for example, if you get a frost bite on your legs during an outdoor stay, in your lower parts of the body, like upper legs, that will not help you in the fight against herpes; the dammaged skin would be rather a trigger. On the other hand, it is well docummented the fact that immersions in cold water of your legs will improve the circulation in the legs that also being related to herpes: think about the fact that most people when having an herpes OB are experiencing leg muscle pain, numbness etc. > > In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) > > water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And you won't touch the latent site in anyway shape or form either as far > as temperature fluctation goes either. Yes, you won't touch the latent site, but as my ideea goes, the fact that the transport mechanism will be interrupted will be a great impact on the viruses as shedding. > > Furthermore, once it would happen, by the interruption of multiplication > > it would allow our immune system at all to recover and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > tendency to swim underwater quite a bit when I was younger. Still had the > odd cold sore in the years after those events. C'mon, Tim, you did not swim underwater in a 5 degree lake when you were a kid, not for more then a few seconds anyway. That would not be sufficient to have a drastic impact on the shedding of the viruses. It's different when immersing your lower body for genital herpes: I stopped having genital herpes OB since that summer when doing these long immersions in cold river water! I still get cold sores though. A cold sore cannot have a similar treatment, because you simply cannot immerse long enough your face in cold water (all the surrounding neurons must be immersed not only your lips, right?), you would risk big time health issues; it's fine to do it with your lower body; I wouldn't go so far to immerse my head into a 5 degree water due to the danger for the brain! > Sorry it doesnt really hold up the way you describe it....especially in a > warmblooded mammal. You are going a bit too general in my opinion.Of course a penguin has thick skin but have you heared of penguins getting herpes? > > For oral herpes, applying ice cubs its probably the best choice to go with. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scale you seem to be suggesting....and plenty of people who have > tested the idea and still get outbreaks to look at. Ice it's soothing for the cold sores. It will stop the blood from reaching the area and other things are taking place, too. It will improve the circulation afterward that will help the healing processes. I have to disagree with you, I think it DOES have a great impact on the viruses. Perl von Molson, autodidact, expert in treating HSV symptoms naturally. > > No doubt it makes a huge impact on viruses this low temperature environment. > > Big doubts, in my opinion, Im afraid. > > Tim > Who know, maybe viruses have their own "fight or flight" type of > reaction, They have a reactive ability, reliant on, so far as we can tell, host transcription factor or similar changing the way they act...unlike rats leaving the sinking ship it doesn;t throw the reservoir virus out, it starts it replicating. > As we can see from the above link, > it is pretty clear how things work on a timely basis. > during the immediate early, early, late and latent infection periods. > 510 minutes were considered as a reference, I reckon. Thats the lifecycle of a single synchronous infection...not quite the same as a human body.....it describes the lifecycle of one virion nicely. > You cannot say it will continue as it would in a 20 centigrade > environment. I didn;t say it wouldnt....I very clearly stated it would be slowed very much in cold....my point is that viruses are so simple biochemically compared to a large organism like us that they are capable of picking up again and carrying on. > There are exceptions, of course, but for the types of bacterias > and viruses related to herpes (those found on the skin, blood etc) > such a low temperature environment will have a great impact on them. You rather missed my statement that I use cold to presreve titre of virus while Im handling it. >>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) >>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > great > impact on the viruses as shedding. Again back to the scale point and the interrupt point. You might slow things down a abit and temporarily. If you do more you will do so by wrecking your own body...that transport mechanism may be what the virus uses but it is also a host cell transport mechanism - it has a purpose to the cell other than moving some virus around. You are talking about a system that is buried in relatively deep and so protected from the cold. >>>> To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago >>> in a mountain lake and cold river several times [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That would not be sufficient to have a drastic impact > on the shedding of the viruses. It was probably around 20-30 but you said that would be enough, hence my use of such swimming as a counter - also not even normal swimming immerses the face for substantial periods of time - examine either freestyle or breaststroke done reasonably. In the paragraph above you have directly contradicted your initial statements; I quote your exact words from the first post... >>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) >>> water for a few seconds to say the least, wouldn't this >>> assure the blockage of the viruses from multiplying? > It's different when immersing your lower body for genital herpes: >> Sorry it doesnt really hold up the way you describe it....especially in a >> warmblooded mammal. > > You are going a bit too general in my opinion. Of course a penguin has > thick skin but have you heared of penguins getting herpes? Yes - there are a number of avian herpesviruses and there are a couple of papers around listing penguins. Erm 2 secs...here we go Kincaid AL, Bunton TE, Cranfield M. Herpesvirus-like infection in black-footed penguins (Spheniscus demersus). J Wildl Dis. 1988 Jan;24(1):173-5. A more reasonable/studied example is probably in seals and phocidherpesviruses. You will find more data on them and they too spend large amounts of time immersed in cold. The thick skin issue merely covers the gradient of heat in the body for long term survival...comparatively its still similar since you have a skin surface the virus travels to eventually. They still get active infections. Im not being too general in the slightest - the basic idea that a warm blooded mammal has an internal heat supply that maintains temperature in the body in some structures you are considering is fundamental to us as organisms and pretty much a major point for this discussion. > I have to disagree with you, I think it DOES have a great impact on > the viruses. Not in the way you describe - note I have said cold slows things up in viruses, basic chemistry indicates that - my issues are a) the temporary nature of the thing due to the simplicity of virus biochemistry compared to host cell biochemistry and b) how easy it is to get thats sort of cooling effect in vivo because us mammals heat ourselves from the inside. I could believe some general health issues with regular swimming in cold temperatures helping stress relief or general health having a knock on effect to help some people - there are people in Russia and Sweden who swear by this sort of thing and go swimming in lakes and sea holes in the middle of winter (I've seen them do it *shudders*). But not a global fast permanent shut down of virus in the manner you describe. Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568 > > Who know, maybe viruses have their own "fight or flight" type of > > reaction, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > leaving the sinking ship it doesn;t throw the reservoir virus out, it > starts it replicating. I will have to continue, risking of boring you with my long paragraphs ( I apologyse for my grammar and all that). These are very important considerations for me. Viruses, unlike rats or other creatures, doesn't seem to have the "survival instinct" as we call it; however, we don't know what is going on a a quantum level; maybe there is such thing as viral fight for its survival as any other creatures do it all the time. > > As we can see from the above link, > > it is pretty clear how things work on a timely basis. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thats the lifecycle of a single synchronous infection...not quite the same > as a human body.....it describes the lifecycle of one virion nicely. After all, there is the only way to compare using a scientific method. It can be that far from the live situation. > > You cannot say it will continue as it would in a 20 centigrade > > environment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compared to a large organism like us that they are capable of picking up > again and carrying on. Please read below; the ideea is that slowing down the viral multiplication for a short period of time even, would have a great impact in the recovery of our defence mechanisms to further fight against the virus. In special when, as I've wrote below, the asymptomatic shedding will be diminished. > > There are exceptions, of course, but for the types of bacterias > > and viruses related to herpes (those found on the skin, blood etc) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the cell other than moving some virus around. You are talking about a > system that is buried in relatively deep and so protected from the cold. I don't know about that one, Tim. "burried relatively deep", when actually the cold water will cool down 30 (thirthy) times faster then cold air our bodies. That can be the case for the penguins, that have a thick layer that protects them from cold, indeed. Same for polar bears. When immersed in cold water, the blood in the vecinity of the skin will be cooled down very fast and that may impact on the viruses situated in those areas. > >>>> To be honest with you, I tried this on my own a couple of years ago > >>> in a mountain lake and cold river several times [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > In the paragraph above you have directly contradicted your initial > statements; No, not really; when I've meant a few seconds in a 5 degree centigrade water, that cannot be applied to swimming underwater for the same period of time. 20 degrees is not at all the same as in 5 degrees; a totally different story. You can't even compare it. It must be repetitive in order to be effective; if doing this underwater, you or me or anyone else would risk having a thermic shock to the brain and other life threatening problems, but LOL! read these: http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/265 A mathematical model for human brain cooling during cold-water near-drowning Our model indicates that, during the first 2 min of submersion, ventilation rates of 500 ml/min for an adult and 150 ml/min for a child are required to reduce the central blood temperature by 6°C. This amount should be considered as a minimal requirement, inasmuch as effectiveness of heat exchange between water and central blood cannot be 100%, and the blood temperature could be affected by venous return from other parts of the body. The amount of water that can be aspirated/ventilated that is compatible with life is not known; however, cold-water near-drowning survivors have been shown to have water in the airways and lungs (5). It was demonstrated that as many as 61% of submersed dogs were revived after breathing room-temperature water for an extended period of 75 s (9). Predictive data from the present model are consistent with the general belief that children have a greater chance for survival from cold-water submersion than adults. Children have a smaller-sized head, which results in more conductive cooling. Furthermore, the studies of Ramey et al. (22) showed that the breath-hold duration was shorter in children than in adults during total submersion. If this relationship persisted during accidental cold-water submersion, children would have water in their upper airways, and possibly ventilate water, earlier than adults. Earlier conductive cooling at boundary 2 and circulatory cooling via the lungs should provide an additional survival advantage for children. > I quote your exact words from the first post... > >>> In this case, if immersed in a 5 degree centigrade( Celsius) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the body in some structures you are considering is fundamental to us as > organisms and pretty much a major point for this discussion. I would've never imagine, that penguins can get herpes infections, too. Let's not forget that, maybe, the whole point about the cold water immersion can be rather the immune stimulation (or stress release, as you've pointed that out). You are aware that in order cu cure colds, such cold water immersions of cold showers help a whole lot. > > I have to disagree with you, I think it DOES have a great impact on > > the viruses. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to host cell biochemistry and b) how easy it is to get thats sort of cooling effect in vivo because us > mammals heat ourselves from the inside. > I could believe some general health issues with regular swimming in cold > temperatures helping stress relief or general health having a knock on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tim The idea was, when a huge number of viruses that multiply exponentially can be interrupted from doing so, there must be a great impact on their multiplication (see the temporal graphic) and even a little bit of time will allow our body to recover. After all, the future shedding viruses will originate perhaps from this large ammount of viruses seen at the end of the animation. THAT LARGE AMMOUNT OF VIRUSES can be the causal of asymptomatic shedding. <snip> >[H]owever, we don't know what is going on a a quantum level; >maybe there is such thing as viral fight for its survival as any >other creatures do it all the time. It all depends on the phase of the moon, Perlie. Full moon: lots of quantum fighting. New moon: only a little quantum fighting. Just like werewolves. Mike > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike Leave the kiddie jokes and put your a.s to work; these are important issues. Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! Perl von Molson >> <snip> >> >[H]owever, we don't know what is going on a a quantum level; >> >maybe there is such thing as viral fight for its survival as any >> >other creatures do it all the time. >> It all depends on the phase of the moon, Perlie. Full moon: lots of >> quantum fighting. New moon: only a little quantum fighting. Just >> like werewolves. >Leave the kiddie jokes and put your a.s to work; these >are important issues. The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ... survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses, that such is an "important issue", and that you think YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV. Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless. >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours? Mike M. L. S. wrote: > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ... > survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses, So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting. Of course there are things going on at the quantum level. Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does. There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum in order to become viable and functional. Such an equilibrum is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels. that such is an > "important issue", and that you think YOU are "work[ing]" on curing > HSV. First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a big impediment in curing yourself from it. Those are the "jokes". > Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless. As long as you don't have a better alternative to the points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to call my theory a "joke". A joke requires a context that contradicts some other view of the situation. You didn't express any other view. Your joke doesn't make sense. > >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! > > Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of > cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important > issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours? I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that. Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you want to know my credit card number, too? Perl von Molson > Mike >M. L. S. wrote: >> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ... >> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses, >So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting. >Of course there are things going on at the quantum level. >Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does. Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has precisely zilch to do with what you are positing. Viruses can no more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability than a gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself operational. >There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum >in order to become viable and functional. Do you mean "light" waves? No matter. Neither "energies" nor "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional". Of course, it is difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous, like most of what you come out with. >Such an equilibrum >is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the >balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels. My cat is the same cat in the living room as in the dining room. >>that such is an "important issue", and that you think >>YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV. >First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a >big impediment in curing yourself from it. More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it won't require anyone's belief to be effective. Second, the BIG "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*. I *know* that I don't have the knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. I am quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure that YOU are not that someone else. >>Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless. >As long as you don't have a better alternative to the >points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to >call my theory a "joke". That's illogical, Perlie. I don't need to possess a cure for herpes in order to point out that you don't have one, or to point out that your latest theory is as wrong as your previous theory. If Acyclovir didn't exist, pressing hot wooden spoons against your lips STILL wouldn't work. > A joke requires a context >that contradicts some other view of the situation. >You didn't express any other view. >Your joke doesn't make sense. The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their* context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery". >> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! >> Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of >> cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important >> issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours? >I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that. >Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you want >to know my credit card number, too? You can't describe your job without revealing your credit card number? Mike > >M. L. S. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has > precisely zilch to do with what you are positing. The idea was that viruses will try to "survive" in their own way. Even if apparently viruses doesn't seem to have a life in themselves, they do have an "instinct of survival" behaviour as I wrote below. Viruses do not change the nature of matter. Neither do I. I just pointed out that viruses are trying to follow a certain pattern intrinsically contained in their being. For example, if a virus is to choose between going along the axon using the neuronal travel mechanism where they can further multiply and remaining in their latent state WHEN FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE VIRUS TO DO SO, the virus will choose the former alternative. it's about the way Nature works. Viruses can no > more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability than a > gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself > operational. Viruses do not "expoit quantum states"; it is done intrinsically. that is what we call instinct. > >There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum > >in order to become viable and functional. > > Do you mean "light" waves? No matter. wave lenghts I've meant, not light waves. There are subatomic particles that are emiting energy in certain wave lenghts. If that particular state is in equilibrum, that means the energies are in a certain balance. Particles are emiting waves of various lengths, depending of their state of balance. Life requires, as well as any other components that have an existance, a particular state of balance in order to function. Neither "energies" nor > "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional". False. I repeat, as I do it severel times in this topic, there is a balance on a quantum level, an equilibrum that it's always referenced as a default state of the living matter. Of course, it is > difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a > simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > My cat is the same cat in the living room as in the dining room. That explains how much you are grasping the concepts...LOL > >>that such is an "important issue", and that you think > >>YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV. > There are enough cures out there, most of them are folk remedies shamanic and other type of cures. If you or other haven't heared of them it doesn't exclude them from existing. > >First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a > >big impediment in curing yourself from it. > > More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it > won't require anyone's belief to be effective. A cure is not going to be your cat, Mike, to "come along". A rose is a rose is a rose... Second, the BIG > "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT > ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*. (except for the wooden spoons LOL!) I *know* that I don't have the > knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want > to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to > acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. neither do I. However, the type of cure I'm trying to find doesn't require either one of the above mentioned factors. All I need is a little bit of time (it's tough nowadays but I take it as a hobby, I'm passionate about learning these things, that would help me to maintain my general health anyway), money it's all that you pay for a little bit of ingredients, a few bucks here and there. Again, those things are good for general health. Energy? No wonder you lack of energy, Mike, considering the crap you're eating and avoid eating. I am > quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure > that YOU are not that someone else. > >>Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but jokes, nevertheless. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in order to point out that you don't have one, or to point out that > your latest theory is as wrong as your previous theory. After all, I will be the one cured; the fact that I share my methods doesn't necessarily mean they will for for anyone else as well. By the number of treatments that I've tried, it would be hard to say which one have worked. If > Acyclovir didn't exist, Acyclovir require lifetime consistent ingestion and it's expensive too. I've read about Acyclovir causing cancer and testicular athrophiation, to name just a couple of things (besides headaches, etc etc) pressing hot wooden spoons against your lips > STILL wouldn't work. How much did you pay for that wooden spoon? Is that my fault, you've started the fire alarm by burning spoons? > > A joke requires a context > >that contradicts some other view of the situation. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their* > context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery". Interesting > >> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You can't describe your job without revealing your credit card > number? Maybe (considering how many salespeople are around it's pretty close for that one to happen); anyway, why don't you ask any other poster in the group what jobs they have, why you're asking me, when I've already denied to tell you?) Perl von Molson > Mike >> >M. L. S. wrote: >> >> The "jokes", Perlie, are that you think there is a "fight for ... >> >> survival" at the "quantum level" for HSV viruses, >> >So, what is your theory? Read at the bottom of the posting. >> >Of course there are things going on at the quantum level. >> >Otherways life didn't exist in the way it does. >> Duh. If you change the nature of matter, the entire universe >> wouldn't "exist in the way it does", but that faux profundity has >> precisely zilch to do with what you are positing. >The idea was that viruses will try to "survive" in their own way. That idea is laughable, Perlie, even if you move it out of the realm of quantum mechanics with which you associated it earlier. >Even if apparently viruses doesn't seem to have a >life in themselves, they do have an "instinct of survival" behaviour >as I wrote below. No, Perlie, viruses do NOT have an "instinct of survival". They have no instincts of any kind. They are little machines that will react to the same environment the same way every time. But here's another joke for you, Perlie. Three posts ago you wrote... "Viruses, unlike rats or other creatures, doesn't seem to have the "survival instinct" as we call it". Now you write... "[T]hey do have an "instinct of survival" behaviour". I think that's funny. Maybe not ha ha funny, but still funny. >Viruses do not change the nature of matter. Neither >do I. >I just pointed out that viruses are trying to follow a certain pattern >intrinsically contained in their being. You're sounding less ridiculous, because you're not talking about "quantum level[s]" anymore, but essentially you are lying about what you said earlier. >For example, if a virus is to choose between going along the axon using >the neuronal travel mechanism where they can further multiply and >remaining in their latent state WHEN FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE VIRUS >TO DO SO, the virus will choose the former alternative. it's about the >way Nature works. LOL. Viruses choose nothing, Perlie. When the right chemical button is pushed, the virus goes and performs as its programming dictates. >>Viruses can no more exploit quantum states to insure their own viability >>than a gasoline engine can exploit quantum states to keep itself operational. >Viruses do not "expoit quantum states"; it is done intrinsically. >that is what we call instinct. That may be what you call instinct, but it's just a repetition of the same joke, Perlie. Viruses are tiny self-replicating robots. They do not have any instincts. >>>There are energies and lenghts waves that require a certain equilibrum >>>in order to become viable and functional. >> Do you mean "light" waves? No matter. >wave lenghts I've meant, not light waves. That would be "lengths" then. And the statement three sentences up is still utter nonsense. >There are subatomic particles that are emiting energy in >certain wave lenghts. Name 'em. >If that particular state is in equilibrum, >that means the energies are in a certain balance. Gibberish. >Particles are emiting waves of various lengths, >depending of their state of balance. More gibberish. >Life requires, as well as any other components that >have an existance, a particular state of balance in order to >function. That's so general as to be meaningless, ie., it is grammatically mangled gibberish. >>Neither "energies" nor "waves" can ever become "viable" or "functional". >False. I repeat, as I do it severel times in this topic, >there is a balance on a quantum level, an equilibrum >that it's always referenced as a default state of the living matter. You're loony. And you ignored my criticism of your nonsense use of the words "viable" and "functional". Speaking of "wave lengths" as being "viable" is nonsense. Speaking of "Life" as "referenc[ing]" the internal architecture of the atom is a sad, stupid joke. >>Of course, it is >> difficult to tell with you, Perlie, whether you are confused on a >> simply grammatical level, or whether you are confused at the more >> basic conceptual level. However, one cannot say, "That energy is >> now viable", or "This light wave is functioning". It's ridiculous, >> like most of what you come out with. >> >Such an equilibrum >> >is imposing (consider it as the base of any other processes) the >> >balance that is taking place at some higher physical levels. >> My cat is the same cat in the living room as in the dining room. >That explains how much you are grasping the concepts...LOL "And your wise men don't know how it feels to be Thick as a Brick". -- Tull. >> >>that such is an "important issue", and that you think >> >>YOU are "work[ing]" on curing HSV. > There are enough cures out there, most of them are folk remedies >shamanic and other type of cures. If you or other haven't heared of >them it doesn't exclude them from existing. You're not capable of conducting a straight line discussion of anything, are you? >>>First of all, if you don't believe you can be cured, this is already a >>>big impediment in curing yourself from it. >> More ridiculousness, Perlie. First, when a cure comes along it >> won't require anyone's belief to be effective. >A cure is not going to be your cat, Mike, to "come along". >A rose is a rose is a rose... A cure *will* come along, Perlie. By and by. But it won't come from some addle-pate grinding herbs in his blender. >>Second, the BIG >> "impediment" to my "curing" *myself* is the fact that I AM NOT >> ATTEMPTING to cure *myself*. >(except for the wooden spoons LOL!) Don't put YOUR crap on me, monkey boy. Here's your stupidity from two years ago when you floated your wooden spoon theory: http://babyurl.com/LeFaMK >>I *know* that I don't have the >> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want >> to expend the significant amounts of time, energy, and money to >> acquire the expertise to explore the various possibilities. >neither do I. However, the type of cure I'm trying to find >doesn't require either one of the above mentioned factors. >All I need is a little bit of time (it's tough nowadays but I take it >as a hobby, Go for it. >I'm passionate about learning these things, that would help me to >maintain my general health anyway), money it's all that you pay for >a little bit of ingredients, a few bucks here and there. Again, those >things are good for general health. >Energy? No wonder you lack of energy, Mike, considering the crap you're >eating and avoid eating. Who said I lack energy, Perlie? >>I am quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure >> that YOU are not that someone else. >> >>Those are the "jokes". Not very funny jokes, I'm afraid, but >jokes, nevertheless. >> >As long as you don't have a better alternative to the >> >points expressed in the topic, it doesn't make any sense to >> >call my theory a "joke". >> That's illogical, Perlie. I don't need to possess a cure for herpes >> in order to point out that you don't have one, or to point out that >> your latest theory is as wrong as your previous theory. >After all, I will be the one cured; the fact that I share my methods >doesn't necessarily mean they will for for anyone else as well. >By the number of treatments that I've tried, it would be hard to say >which one have worked. I can tell you, without even knowing the bulk of the particulars: none of them. >If Acyclovir didn't exist, >Acyclovir require lifetime consistent ingestion and >it's expensive too. I've read about Acyclovir >causing cancer and testicular athrophiation, to name just a couple of >things (besides headaches, etc etc) You're lying, Perlie. You're intentionly spreading false information because it suits your particular brand of backwards stupidity. >>pressing hot wooden spoons against your lips STILL wouldn't work. >How much did you pay for that wooden spoon? Is that my fault, you've >started the fire alarm by burning spoons? My wooden spoons are the expensive kind. I don't burn them. And I wouldn't waste them pursuing some monkey boy magic. >> > A joke requires a context >> >that contradicts some other view of the situation. >> >You didn't express any other view. >> >Your joke doesn't make sense. >> The joke is that you think "quanta" can differentiate *their* >> context. The joke is your anthropomorphization of "machinery". >Interesting You didn't seem to understand it. >> >> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! >> >> Today I'm a potato. Tomorrow I finish plywooding the new wall of >> >> cabinets I'm building in the garage. Power tools are my "important >> >> issues" this week, Perlie. What are yours? >> >I got a job, I've got stuff to do around the house and all that. >> >Let's call it confidential (regarding the first half); unless you want >> >to know my credit card number, too? >> You can't describe your job without revealing your credit card >> number? >Maybe (considering how many salespeople are around it's pretty close >for that one to happen); anyway, why don't you ask any other poster in the group >what jobs they have, why you're asking me, when I've already denied to >tell you?) Well, Perlie, since I did NOT ask you what your job is, I am at pains to consider your question. You said that searching for a cure for herpes in your kitchen cabinet was an "important issue". I said that my currently important issues is "Power tools" and asked, "What are yours?" For some reason you brought up your job and credit card. It's my guess that the kind of person who can't follow a simple conversation is also likely to believe there's a cure for herpes in his blender. Have a nice weekend, Perlie. Mike > >> >M. L. S. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I think that's funny. Maybe not ha ha funny, but still funny. Yeah, well, I made a bit of confussion, I've got to admit it. OK, here is the thing: Indeed, unlike rats, viruses don't posses an instinct of survival. On the other hand, to use a more plastic explanation, the viruses have what we would rather call: "a tendency to achieve a balance, an equilibrum if you wish, that is referenced to its default state as a virus; it is done intrinsically at the quantum level of the virus". See, I did not call it "instinct of survival". > >Viruses do not change the nature of matter. Neither > >do I. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Name 'em. Scientists had done this already. Just a simple search on google: Molecules of life come in waves Compounds found in cells show quantum behaviour. http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=457 by Philip Ball news@nature.com Physicists have watched biological molecules become waves in a dramatic demonstration of the effects of quantum mechanics1. It's not clear that biological molecules act like quantum waves in this way as they go about their business in living cells. However, physicist Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford, UK, and psychologist Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona in Tucson have proposed that consciousness might arise from wave-like quantum-mechanical effects involving protein filaments called microtubules in nerve cells. It would be going too far to suggest that the latest observations provide any support for this idea - for one thing, microtubules are much bigger and heavier than the molecules used in the new experiment. But they do demonstrate that the quantum world has wider boundaries than we might have supposed. Scientists know that subatomic particles and individual atoms can behave like waves, in line with the famous quantum notion of wave-particle duality. But these properties are thought to give way to classical, billiard-ball-like behaviour as particles get larger. Quantum mechanics is needed to describe how large molecules vibrate, spin and move, but the molecules themselves are seen as occupying a well-defined position at any moment. Wave-like objects, in contrast, are smeared out. A particle behaving like a wave can, for example, seem to pass through two slits in a barrier simultaneously. When this happens, the two waves emerging from the slits may interfere with each other. Big waves Light waves produce a pattern of light and dark bands in two-slit experiments, where the beams alternately reinforce and cancel each other. Beams of quantum particles such as electrons generate a similar pattern. In 1999, Markus Arndt and colleagues at the University of Vienna, Austria, reported an interference pattern from a beam of C60 molecules passed through an array of slits2. These molecules - hollow spheres made up of 60 carbon atoms, also known as buckyballs - were the biggest objects shown to exhibit quantum wave-like behaviour. Now the Vienna group has seen an interference pattern for molecules of tetraphenylporphyrin (TPP). These plate-shaped molecules are twice the width of buckyballs. The core of a TPP molecule is a porphyrin chemical group, which is the key component of light-absorbing chlorophyll in plants and oxygen-binding haemoglobin in blood. The researchers have also broken their own record for the heaviest objects seen to display wave-like interference, using fluorinated C60 molecules. > >If that particular state is in equilibrum, > >that means the energies are in a certain balance. [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > http://babyurl.com/LeFaMK Mike, don't try to sell me doughnuts. You wouldn't be THAT PISSED OFF every single time we discuss about home remedies and you're reminding me of wooden spoons. You tried this method too and I don't see what is wrong with it. It is one method that, by any means, it should have helped us in a way or another. Again, we don't know it yet why. > >>I *know* that I don't have the > >> knowledge to effect such a cure, and I also *know* that I don't want [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Who said I lack energy, Perlie? OK, you don't lack energy. > >>I am quite willing to let someone else pursue it. And I am quite sure > >> that YOU are not that someone else. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > You didn't seem to understand it. Oh, OK, I quite missed your point, that was comparing a virus to a machine and you say I was trying to "humanise" a machine. Sorry. Good one hehehe. > >> >> >Mike, don't be a couch potatoe! > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Have a nice weekend, Perlie. You, as well. Perl von Molson > Mike just additionally, Mike, as you probably know this, viruses are being considered in the middle way between crystals and life forms: ON THE HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY RELATION I have always thought that wet seeds from a fresh tomato illustrate the Heisenberg relation. If you look at a tomato seed on your plate you may think that you have established both its position and the fact that it is at rest. But if you try to measure the location of the seed by pressing your finger or a spoon on it the seed will slip away. As soon as you measure its position it begins to move. A similar kind of slipperiness for real quantum particles is expressed mathematically by the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. An important warning must be stated regarding Heisenberg's uncertainty relation: it does not apply to a single measurement on a single particle, although people often think of it that way. Heisenberg's relation is a statement about a statistical average over lots of measurements of position and momenta. The uncertainty.has meaning only if you repeat measurements. Some people imagine that quantum objects like the electron are "fuzzy" because we cannot measure their position and momentum simultaneously and they therefore lack objectivity, but that way of thinking is inaccurate. To get a feeling of what the Heisenberg relation implies for various objects, we can compare the product of the size of an object times its typical momentum to Planck's constant (h) -- a measure of how important quantum effects are. For a flying tennis ball, the uncertainties due to quantum theory are one part in about 10^(34). Hence a tennis ball, to a high degree of accuracy, obeys the deterministic rules of classical physics. Even for a bacterium, the effects are only about 1 part in 10^(9), and it really does not experience the quantum world either. For atoms in a crystal we are getting down to the quantum world, and the uncertainties are one part in a hundred. Finally, for electrons moving in an atom the quantum uncertainties completely dominate and we have entered the true quantum world governed by the uncertainty relations and quantum mechanics. Adapted from: Heinz R. Pagels: The Cosmic Code. Simon & Schuster, 1982. ScienceWeek http://www.scienceweek.com http://scienceweek.com/2003/sb030822.htm ARE VIRUSES LIVING BEINGS? By Nasif Nahle Certain thermodynamic systems have provoked polemic in the scientific neighborhood because, under explicit circumstances, they perform some macroscopic functions of living beings. I am referring to viruses, which are particles of nucleic acids contained by a capsule, generally made of proteins, although some RNA viruses, as some parasitic particles of plants are uncovered or not contained by a capsid. The particularity of the viruses is that if they are found in an abiotic field they would display fixed characteristics of inert beings, since they are not capable of capturing autonomously the energy from the environment to redirect it toward specific metabolic processes or toward definite functions, for example reproduction. Without doubt, when viruses are found in an abiotic field, they are inert beings. However, when viruses are positioned in an adequate biotic field, whenever that biotic field is compatible with the viruses' genomic sequences, they would be able to replicate themselves taking advantage of the energy and the catalytic molecules from the biotic medium where they progress as parasites. These are macroscopic characteristics of viruses by which some biologists consider them like living systems, while other biologists consider that viruses are plainly inert systems. This is not a matter of dogmas or personal beliefs. Let's analyze the facts in a simple manner to obtain a coherent closure about the energy state of the viruses. 1. Viruses cannot situate autonomously in locations of high energy density fields. 2. The sequence of the genetic material of viruses coincides with the sequence of certain sections of DNA or RNA of host cells, from here that the viruses are considered to have been originated as waste-products derived from the cells that would be their same host cells in the future. 3. Viruses do not possess cytosol, for which we have demonstrated that is the exclusive phase of matter that can experiment the energy state of life. 4. Viruses do not have mitochondria, which are the organelles apt to capture and store energy for redirect it to the execution of the many functions of a real living being. 5. Viruses do not possess plasma membrane or internal membranes, which can experiment the proton motile force. 6. Viruses do not possess membranes capable of being excited by collisions with photons to hold the energy released after the collision and after using it in the synthesis of more complex molecules that could store the energy of activation carried by photons. 7. Viruses do not acquire life during their parasitoid stance in the host cells since life cannot be transferred or infused, but viruses are directed by the same host cells to make them to coincide with their own macroscopic characteristics, which have nothing to see with the quantum state of life, but with other microstates experimented by autocatalytic molecules (Nucleic Acids, catalytic proteins, enzymes, etc.). 8. The quantum state of life only can be experimented and maintained by a specific array of matter, this is to say, only by completely-incorporated specific positions and movements of the energetic molecules that comprise a cytosol. THE MOST PLAUSIBLE CLOSURE ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT VIRUSES ARE NOT LIVING BEINGS BECAUSE, BY THEIR MACROSCOPIC MOLECULAR STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION, THEY CANNOT EXPERIMENT THE QUANTUM STATE OF LIFE. http://www.biocab.org/Biology.html#anchor_32 Addendum No. 4- When I assessed meticulously on the issue of the meaning of life, I found that life can never be transferred, but maintained by the structures that descend from other still-living structures. It has been occurring ever since the first protobiont appeared on Earth. Life is not something that can be transferred from one system to another, but a quantum state of a particular organization of the matter, which is maintained by the descendants of the biosystems. Life is an energy state experimented by some quasi-stable thermodynamic systems, which permits them to establish, no-spontaneously, a series of intervals that delay the diffusion or dispersion of their local energy to more available microstates. Thus, life is a thermal property inherent to a definite group of particles that maintain a particular quantum state which allows those individual particles to be organized into structures that can increase their complexity, acquiring the capability of capturing and manipulating the energy from the cosmos for being conserved in a thermal state of maximum no-equilibrium and a stable density of energy. The structures that array on this quantum state maintain a limited macrostructural order which permits them to reproduce and to conserve the thermal property by means of a progeny. Life is a quantum state of a specific organization of structurally ordered matter. Because life is a quantum state, life cannot be transferred, induced, embedded or infused to inert structures. Life can only be maintained. Consequently, all living beings have to replicate by division of themselves (unicellular organisms) or of their cells (multicellular organisms) for growing (in the quantity of individuals or in the complexity of one individual), as to be genetically perpetuated. Viruses are not cells, but they behave as living beings because they perpetuate their genomes when they act as parasites. In this case, viruses replicate b |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message