It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are viruses alive?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2021 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: LABTECH767

thanks for a great answer. Now, can a virus die?

The virus doesn't "seek" a new cell or move anywhere on its own, or collect any sustenance (food) or emit any waste and therefore creates no energy at all.

Could something that has no energy and creates no energy be alive? It's only a set of instructions specific to a certain cell type floating around out there. It's a mechanism created by life, not a life itself.

I don't think it can die, it can be physically destroyed or chemically "disarmed", but I feel it has to be made that the cell program section (virus) is disabled so it cannot work anymore, like any mechanism. You don't "kill" a mechanism, you render it non-functional.



posted on Oct, 12 2021 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Law

“Energy unavailable to do work” is one definition of entropy. Life requires a constant input of energy to maintain order, and without energy the complex structures of living systems would not exist. The steady flow of energy necessary to sustain a living system increases entropy. Feb 1, 2014




here




posted on Oct, 12 2021 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

originally posted by: CafeconLeche1
Sorry in advance, English isn’t my mother tongue.
To my understanding, there is not a scientific agreement about viruses, they are considered to be at the limit of life, like zombies if you like. For that reason antibiotics are useles with them, because can’t be “killed”, just innactivated, unlike bacterias. If you want to explain viruses to the general population can’t get philosophical, so is better explained in simply terms, like matter is never destroyed, but people never get to philosophical when speaking, so you just say “that tree was destroyed by fire”.


It really is very simple, but too complex to completely understand.

When we look at the foundation of life, all living things have a starting place. Identifying that place is not always very easy. There are so many factors that come into play, energy, matter, light, darkness, water, wind, temperature, etc. All play a role in the life cycle. We attribute characteristics to entities and use the characteristics to name it.

According to the Bible, man was given the task of naming everything on this planet. It is the one thing that we have done well. We have a name for everything that we see, feel, think, or hear. If we don't have a name for it, we give it a name.

The issue arises when we have to deal with something we can't name, because we can't see it or sense it. We make the assumption that if we can't process it or interact with it, it is dead, does not exist, or never existed. Where the truth may be as simple as, we don't see it because though it exist, our ability to see it or sense it is limited to a particular range.

I am doing a lousy job of trying to explain what I mean.

For instance, we can only see or hear within certain spectrums of light and sound. We only know that some things exist outside of those ranges, because we can witness other lifeforms on our planet react or respond to them.

I think we have to accept that there is much more around us then we can process or even imagine. I think the butterfly effect is real. I just think it often affects changes that are so small ,and so slow, in our time frame, they we don't recognize it.

I am still battling Sahara dust in my Florida home. I keep asking myself, what else came with the wind that brought all that sand from the Sahara, that I cannot see. I think we don't give ourselves enough credit for how much we are an integral part of life, and life forms, on our planet. I also think we give ourselves to much credit for the value we think we bring to this planet.

The planet would thrive without us. We on the other hand could make ourselves extinct, by wiping out just one species, that we think of as a nuisance, undesirable, or unnecessary. We know so much less than we think we know. This further limits us, because there is likely much knowledge available, that we never give ourselves a chance at knowing.

If microorganisms have the power of life and death, and live in a hidden world, beyond what we can see without the aide of a microscope, what else is out there?



So it is simple or is it complex? I think words and names are simple but the world isn’t, so in the daily life you use words the simple way, but time to time we like to see beyond simple and we give the words deeper meanings. Speaking simple a tree can be destroyed and an idea can be “born”. You can even “create” things, when really you don’t “create” anything, you just stick things that already exist and make it look different.

To network dude, in Argentina are doctors that even take Ivermectin daily, others tell you to take only if you are sick, and others don’t use it at all. I don’t get something, if you can explain me please: it is illegal to use Ivermectin in the US? And because of that people get mad? I do believe it works, but I didn’t buy it yet, always forget, I would like to have one in case I get very sick. If anything like a placebo.



posted on Oct, 12 2021 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Yeah, but won't we also die if the conditions aren't right? If we were naked in Antarctica, wouldn't we die? Yes we can wear cloths and find a nice shelter in order to survive, but if viruses could do the same; they would probably also survive. One of these days science is probably going to find out these things are alive; I think. I think the issue is that we don't know how to classify them yet.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 12:01 AM
link   
They created a definition that viruses are not alive, but I do not think that is right. I actually believe those hacking software programs are living intellects.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Sorry you have it completely backwards. The science has said for a decade now that ivermectin inhibits the replication of positive sense single stranded RNA viruses. This is why they have been using it for flavivirus (Yellow Fever) and other RNA viruses.

SARS-CoV-2 is also a positive sense single stranded RNA virus.

Ivermectin on viruses since 2012:

Ivermectin is a potent inhibitor of flavivirus replication specifically targeting NS3 helicase activity: new prospects for an old drug
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Ivermectin is a specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear import able to inhibit replication of HIV-1 and dengue virus
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Ivermectin inhibits DNA polymerase UL42 of pseudorabies virus entrance into the nucleus and proliferation of the virus in vitro and vivo
URL

Ivermectin on SARS-CoV-2:

The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A Combination of Ivermectin and Doxycycline Possibly Blocks the Viral
Entry and Modulate the Innate Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients


PDF


Ivermectin showed a perfect binding site to the Spike-RBD and ACE2 interacting
region indicating that it might be interfering in the interaction of spike with ACE2 and preventing the viral entry
in to the host cells.

Ivermectin also exhibited significant binding affinity with different SARS-CoV-2 structural
and non-structural proteins (NSPs) which have diverse functions in virus life cycle. Significant binding of
Ivermectin with RdRp indicate its role in the inhibition of the viral replication and ultimately impeding the
multiplication of the virus.

Ivermectin also possess significant binding affinity with NSP3, NSP10, NSP15 and
NSP16 which helps virus in escaping from host immune system. Molecular dynamics simulation study shows
that binding of the Ivermectin with Mpro, Spike, NSP3, NSP16 and ACE2 was quiet stable. Thus, our docking
and simulation studies reveal that combination of Ivermectin and doxycycline might be executing the effect by
inhibition of viral entry and enhance viral load clearance by targeting various viral functional proteins.






We know chemically (scientifically) that ivermectin can bind to SARS-CoV-2 and inhibit replication. This alone should give people confidence to use the safe drug as a treatment.

Any "randomized double blind study" that shows ivermectin is not effective is very likely to be flawed, a complete farce, or happenchance. This highlights the failure of our current medical system where we place the fate of drugs on a lottery instead of actual science. Randomly selecting a small group of people for a trial is the lottery.


originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
So, people are coming up with their own science to disprove existing science


Yes, Big Pharma, their paid shill "scientists", the puppet media, and all their viewers stuck in the media's hypnotic trance are coming up with their own science to disprove existing science. Ivermectin binds to RNA viruses and inhibits their replication.

edit on 13-10-2021 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

By that definition viruses are not alive.

I see them as a simple collection of particles. Much like a clump of sphere magnets that do nothing but interact with other sphere magnets and magnetic things.




originally posted by: network dude
A virus responds to the environment. Which I believe is why we have a "Flu season".


That is like saying a fire responds to wind and rain. Or a compass needle responds to the Earth. It's not really responding, it a simple physical interaction.


originally posted by: network dude
A virus infects cells


Infect is such a sensationalist word for it.

In reality viruses just get stuck to cells like magnets, by chance. Since cells are fatty, oily, and fluid like, the virus ends up sinking into and getting absorbed by the cell. Much like a drop of oil encapsulating a spec of dust. Nothing spectacular or purposeful, it just happens.


originally posted by: network dude
A virus reproduces.


Viruses don't reproduce.

Cells act like little copy machines. Almost like cells have little 3D printers in side of them. Once a virus mixes into a cell by chance, the cells just make copies of the virus. Cells are dumb, they will try to make copies of anything that gets inside.


originally posted by: network dude
A virus infects cells, and tries to propagate by seeking to infect other hosts.


Viruses don't seek to do anything. That is like saying magnets seek metal and other magnets. They don't seek, they just have physical interactions when they are near other things.

Virus just get stuck to cells, and cells are just dumb enough to make copies. Then the process repeats. Eventually it repeats enough that your body contains a lot of copies. When your body is overflowing with these copies you easily spread them around, and they eventually get stuck to other people. Rinse and repeat.


originally posted by: network dude
Adaptation, growth and development, all phases of the beginning (alpha variant) and seeing the proliferation of the Delta variant, and knowing the life of a virus is mutation, and usually a weakening of the effectiveness.


Viruses don't adapt by choice. In fact, they don't do anything. Cells are just not very good 3D printers and they make mistakes when they copy viruses. Very random mistakes. So random that viruses just degrade over time because of it.

Much like taking a picture with a camera, printing it, scanning it, printing it, scanning it, printing it again, over and over. The quality of the picture really sucks after many scans and prints.

So the resulting virus copy can have minor changes we call mutations. Those changes decide if the virus sticks to cells like magnets better or worse. It also decides how easily cells can make copies or not. It also decides if your immune system can recognize it or not. These things all determine if the virus is going to become something or nothing. Generally the viruses that stick better, copy easier, and are not recognizable by the immune system become something instead of nothing.

Virus mutations can also take place via random external energy like heat and light. It physically changes the clump of magnets.

Your initial posts asks how a virus can be "dead", and how vaccines that use "dead" virus material are possible. This "dead" language is the result of oversimplification of science. I also think fear has found a way to exaggerate viruses and what they do. They've inherited mythical monster like attributes.

Like I said, cells are not very good copy machines. The virus can have a specific shape, a specific arrangement of magnets so to speak, that cause the cell to just stop printing in the middle of the print job. The result is an unfinished clump of magnets that don't do much of anything.

If the virus has this specific shape that prevents copies from being made, they say "the virus can't replicate" so its "dead". What they really mean is "the cell can't replicate the virus", because viruses don't replicate.

However, just because the cell can't make a copy of the unprintable virus parts, doesn't mean they can't still teach your immune system how to recognize the real virus and attack it in the future.

Scientists know how to manipulate viruses so they can't be replicated by cells. They "deactivate" them. That is what ends up in older vaccines.

New mRNA vaccines are another beast. They take advantage of the cell's dumb behavior of copying everything, and turn your cells into SARS-CoV-2 spike printers.

The DNA version of the COVID vaccine has modified the adenovirus in such a way that part of its shape (DNA) tells cells to print the COVID spike protein, but after that point it also has the shape that prevents the cell from copying the entire adenovirus so it can't replicate the whole virus. Only the spike part.

On the Ivermectin subject, supposedly it sticks to COVID like magnets as well, and prevents the virus from sticking to cells. Like magnets that cancel out other magnets. It inhibits the cells ability to make a copy of the virus.


edit on 13-10-2021 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2021 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The opposite of "alive" is "dead" - and viruses certainly are not dead. Their classification has been debated and many have suggested that viruses should be classified simply as parasites. But other scientists argue that a virus is very much "alive".
Read the whole article - it's very interesting.

Study adds to evidence that viruses are alive
SEP 25, 2015 1:00 PMBY DIANA YATES | LIFE SCIENCES EDITOR | 217-333-5802
news.illinois.edu...



CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — A new analysis supports the hypothesis that viruses are living entities that share a long evolutionary history with cells, researchers report. The study offers the first reliable method for tracing viral evolution back to a time when neither viruses nor cells existed in the forms recognized today, the researchers say.




The data suggest “that viruses originated from multiple ancient cells … and co-existed with the ancestors of modern cells,” the researchers wrote. These ancient cells likely contained segmented RNA genomes, Caetano-Anollés said.

The data also suggest that at some point in their evolutionary history, not long after modern cellular life emerged, most viruses gained the ability to encapsulate themselves in protein coats that protected their genetic payloads, enabling them to spend part of their lifecycle outside of host cells and spread, Caetano-Anollés said. The protein folds that are unique to viruses include those that form these viral “capsids.”

“These capsids became more and more sophisticated with time, allowing viruses to become infectious to cells that had previously resisted them,” Nasir said. “This is the hallmark of parasitism.”



edit on 13-10-2021 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

thanks for your reply. You took, the time to explain why you answered like you did, as others have. So far, it seems we have two very different schools of thought on this, and both sound like they are firm in their answers.

Prior to my interaction with Phage, I had no idea this was even a debate. It's a shame he didn't stop by.

But I like the magnet analogy, it helps put an abstract thought into something tangible.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Wouldn't the requirement to self replicate mean all sexually reproducing species aren't alive since they can no longer self replicate?



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

And yet, they're not ready to commit to using it for covid. Yet

This is still true

You want to say that its been proven to work in the here and now on this virus? People disagree

You want to claim big pharma is mucking things up? Who makes ivermectin?

The CDC has an agenda? You're in the right thread for that argument

The entire world, including the media, is making it impossible for us to have access to a proven drug?

Well then, I guess we're just ****ed

😉



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

And yet, they're not ready to commit to using it for covid. Yet

This is still true

You want to say that its been proven to work in the here and now on this virus? People disagree

You want to claim big pharma is mucking things up? Who makes ivermectin?

The CDC has an agenda? You're in the right thread for that argument

The entire world, including the media, is making it impossible for us to have access to a proven drug?

Well then, I guess we're just ****ed

😉



if it worked, even a little, it could jeopardize the EUA. They all are making a killing, and will continue making a killing if the shot is the only authorized way. So that argument isn't a real one. The Media does what it's told. Ever heard of Biden's boy's laptop? Remember how the lab leak theory was shunned by all? Trust the WHO? Trust China? there are enough red flags on this one incident to question most of those groups. But if you refuse to see it, you won't.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



if it worked, even a little, it could jeopardize the EUA. They all are making a killing, and will continue making a killing if the shot is the only authorized way. So that argument isn't a real one. The Media does what it's told. Ever heard of Biden's boy's laptop? Remember how the lab leak theory was shunned by all? Trust the WHO? Trust China? there are enough red flags on this one incident to question most of those groups. But if you refuse to see it, you won't.


Theres no way I can reply to this post without setting you off I'm afraid. You've made your mind up and science doesn't actually enter into it anymore, which proves my original post in this thread

Your position is dishonest. You're not actually looking to science. You're set on conspiracy

Fine

My personal opinion is that up to a point conspiracy theorists contribute to keeping the information ecosystem healthy. Up to a point. But it doesn't take much before it becomes a societal algae bloom and poisons everything it touches

If you're going to try making your argument by including Bidens son's laptop, I'm going to cry uncle and say fare thee well

And good luck! 😁



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude



if it worked, even a little, it could jeopardize the EUA. They all are making a killing, and will continue making a killing if the shot is the only authorized way. So that argument isn't a real one. The Media does what it's told. Ever heard of Biden's boy's laptop? Remember how the lab leak theory was shunned by all? Trust the WHO? Trust China? there are enough red flags on this one incident to question most of those groups. But if you refuse to see it, you won't.


Theres no way I can reply to this post without setting you off I'm afraid. You've made your mind up and science doesn't actually enter into it anymore, which proves my original post in this thread

Your position is dishonest. You're not actually looking to science. You're set on conspiracy

Fine

My personal opinion is that up to a point conspiracy theorists contribute to keeping the information ecosystem healthy. Up to a point. But it doesn't take much before it becomes a societal algae bloom and poisons everything it touches

If you're going to try making your argument by including Bidens son's laptop, I'm going to cry uncle and say fare thee well

And good luck! 😁


Yea, you are right. it's all "Russian disinformation", BTW, did you know that ATS is a "conspiracy" site? I know, it surprised me too.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 10:30 AM
link   
They're in the grey area and more of a theoretical/philosophical debate rather than scientific.

They don't metabolise their own energy so don't meet the standard definition of life but also don't meet the standard definition of parasite as they can survive outside their host but they can be considered obligate parasites.

That doesn't mean it's logical to assume Ivermectin would work on Covid as a human embryo/foetus (and a lot of humans up to age 25) meet all the standard scientific criteria of parasite and Ivermectins anti-parasitic properties don't kill them.

There is evidence it blocks receptors in a petridish and in lab rats but they can't be extrapolated to working in humans as 90% of the time the effects witnessed in lab rats aren't witnessed in humans but are commonly used in scientific studies due to the hangover effect.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NickK3

you see it right. I think that pollen is much better parable than fire. Except that it's ejaculated from cells to create new life instead of disease and death. Maybe some viruses are beneficial, maybe crucial to our survival as we are all clunks of cooperating cells. The code of life comes from God. Ebola virus looks like some satanic letter from Doom3.
If we are clunks of cells but we also have spirit then we could see the genetic code as language, as words of life. In this context virus could be the manifestation of evil spirit. A parasitic possession of the host.
Therefore someone said that you cant catch a disease from other being unless you resonate on the same frequency. I'm clean, your anger or weakness wont stick to me. Animal impurity wont stick to me either. Jesus/disciples were not even afraid to touch the lepers



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1
I think that's the best interpretation so far. Was looking at this months ago, just as a general question, not as it relates to Ivermectin. Most info I found suggested the virus is not alive.. As for Ivermectin, who knows, one can find whatever answer they want, so, hard to say. I have no issues with anyone who wants to go that route.

Funny thing, when I type Ivermectin, the spellchecker does not like that word, highlights it as if spelled wrong, but offers no alternative. I don't care for that kind of sh#t/manipulation.


edit on 13-10-2021 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I am not a doctor. But I have been able to realize that science has been hijacked by douchebags. In the past, there would be peer reviewed studies on this and little ambiguity would exist.


network dude

YES, science has been hijacked by criminals bent on making money at ANY expense.



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

network dude

I also am trying to learn .... and I have two questions ... and maybe other readers will have answers...

1) Is there an enzyme within the virus ?

2) Is there activity within the DNA of completely burnt-to-dust particles, as opposed to partially burnt particles ?

Btw... GREAT THREAD !!!



posted on Oct, 13 2021 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: network dude

If something is born...birthed...and can replicate?

Life



So a computer program is living?

I can write (birth) a computer program, and make it so that computer program self-replicates on other computers through a network. Its still not living.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join