Have the biochemistry lessons found in Jenner and Smallpox been understood?
One could say that Jenner in 1797, discovering that cowpox inoculates humans against smallpox, was the beginning in the western world of the therapeutic genetic biochemistry so highly emphasized by medical schools today. Jenner noticed that humans exposed to a rash found on the udders of cows, cowpox, were immune to smallpox; he inoculated humans against smallpox, according to the overwhelming majority of modern authorities, successfully.
Earlier I had noticed something others had not noticed, that substances that retard the spoilage of milk tend to act to prevent cancer when consumed by humans, and now reading of Jenner I find that he used a rash found on the udders of cows.
I believe this has to do with how in the natural historic state, the cells of human beings were first built up by milk produced by the mothers of human beings. As the infants matured they turned to foods other than milk, nevertheless the fact remains that when they became adults the cells in their bodies, were cells descended from cells that fed on milk. In my mind, humans are like a type of milk.
Notice the following paralells:
Milk-producing organ in cow gets rash from cowpox
Human-in-cow (milk) gets rash from smallpox
Human gets rash from smallpox
That which preserves milk, prevents cancer in humans
That which preserves humans, prevents cancer in humans
milk + substance-X keeps milk from spoiling
human + substance-x keeps human from spoiling through cancer
That which causes a reash on milk-producing organs in the cow (cowpox), causes a rash in humans (cowpox, smallpox cousin of cowpox).
That which preserves milk preserves humans.
Humans derive health from milk related substances such as cowpox, just as they historically depended on their own human cells built from mother's milk.
The human physically blessed by consumption of substances found in and around milk, vs the human not physically blessed by such, sort of allergic, to substances found in and around milk: which would you think is more apt to survive, given how infants grow up through and around milk?
Looking at the Jenner case, one can see a madness, that for so many centuries nobody in the western world could see the implications of the fact that milkmaids did not get smallpox after getting cowpox; one wonders whether one can see descendants of this old madness in society today.
Virologists and physicians should be looking systematically at infectious diseases, looking at diseases that have a genetic cousin B, that infects animals and also people, and which is milder in its effects on poeple than A is. Jenner utlized a B type virus (cowpox) which confers immunity against A its cousin smallpox, by inoculating persons with B. This most everyone thinks, worked, and basically still does work in modern vaccines which use an atennuated form of cowpox, because cowpox antigens are close enough to smallpox antigens to generate antibodies in infected persons that protect against smallpox.
The scientists should be looking at the cases where a human is infected with a mild form of disease A, that is mild in its effects on the infected compared to the effects disease A has on infected persons.
Yet what do we see in the modern field of virology? We see a scorn for the "empirical" methods of the past, and a reverence for non-empirical methods--working with the new molecular level info that the scientists of today have, that scientists of yore did not have. We see animals used to test potions in, as opposed to surveyed for infection by mild cousins of diseases dangerous to humans. We see little of looking to utilize, animals or people infected with the less dangerous cousins of dangerous diseases.
Often-times, an animal or person who has a mild form of a serious virus dangerous to humans, or is infected with a mild genetic cousin of a serious virus is unavailable. This means certain things are missing. The cousin of or the mild form of the virus could be nonexistent. The mild cousin or form could be in existence, yet it could still have failed to have come into contact with humans or animals so as to have been able to produce relatively mild symptoms.
If the cousin of the dangerous virus has to be created, newly available genetic history info such as for example, virus A differentiated from virus B 7000 years ago due to the interaction of rats with early human agriculture, can be used to create the new mild version; the processes of natural historic genetic differentiation, such as what some might call evolution (or is that devolution?), and such as mutation, can be mimicked.
If the problem is that the mild cousin or form of the dangerous virus exists, but has not yet had a chance to interact with humans or animals to produce mild symptoms in them, it might be possible to solve the problem by bringing viruses into closer ontact with humans and animals, compared to the contact between such in the natural historical state. One would expect this would be done carefully, via experiments on humans preceded by experiments on animals.
Either way, whether through the creation of mild cousin/forms or the introduction of experimental contacts between viruses and the animal world, the goal is to find a mild cousin/form of a dangerous virus so it can be used to inoculate humans against dangerous forms of the virus.
It strikes me as odd that the empiricism of the past should be scorned in favor of a 'test the new computer generated potion in the monkey' mentality. Looking at things empirically, one can see how milder forms of a virus differ from progressively stronger forms of a virus by nature. This can clue one in on the question of what structure he or she should attempt to impart to the new mild form of a virus taht he or she hopes to produce. It should be easier to induce variations that mimic the variations found in nature, compared to the dificulty of attempting to force nature to conform to an abstraction in the head of a scientist.
Looking at things empirically, should clue one in on how change can be induced in a virus, by way of mimicking processes such as perhaps new interactions between animals plants and humans, that gave rise to new different members of various virus families.
Looking at things empirically, one can see that substances that cause mild symptoms in the milk of animals, should be searched for or experimentally produced. Given that the human is so to speak a kind of milk, such substances could well be cousins of substances such as viruses that cause severe dangerous symptoms in man, and useful for the purpose of inoculating humans against the effects of such dangerous substances. It would be relatively easy to alter such substances that produce symptoms in the milk-producing organs and milk of animals, into new substances that produce mild, inoculatory symptoms in man whereas their previous original natural versions did not.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the present time, which may not coincide with reality
Earlier I had noticed something others had not noticed, that substances that retard the spoilage of milk tend to act to prevent cancer when consumed by humans, and now reading of Jenner I find that he used a rash found on the udders of cows.
I believe this has to do with how in the natural historic state, the cells of human beings were first built up by milk produced by the mothers of human beings. As the infants matured they turned to foods other than milk, nevertheless the fact remains that when they became adults the cells in their bodies, were cells descended from cells that fed on milk. In my mind, humans are like a type of milk.
Notice the following paralells:
Milk-producing organ in cow gets rash from cowpox
Human-in-cow (milk) gets rash from smallpox
Human gets rash from smallpox
That which preserves milk, prevents cancer in humans
That which preserves humans, prevents cancer in humans
milk + substance-X keeps milk from spoiling
human + substance-x keeps human from spoiling through cancer
That which causes a reash on milk-producing organs in the cow (cowpox), causes a rash in humans (cowpox, smallpox cousin of cowpox).
That which preserves milk preserves humans.
Humans derive health from milk related substances such as cowpox, just as they historically depended on their own human cells built from mother's milk.
The human physically blessed by consumption of substances found in and around milk, vs the human not physically blessed by such, sort of allergic, to substances found in and around milk: which would you think is more apt to survive, given how infants grow up through and around milk?
Looking at the Jenner case, one can see a madness, that for so many centuries nobody in the western world could see the implications of the fact that milkmaids did not get smallpox after getting cowpox; one wonders whether one can see descendants of this old madness in society today.
Virologists and physicians should be looking systematically at infectious diseases, looking at diseases that have a genetic cousin B, that infects animals and also people, and which is milder in its effects on poeple than A is. Jenner utlized a B type virus (cowpox) which confers immunity against A its cousin smallpox, by inoculating persons with B. This most everyone thinks, worked, and basically still does work in modern vaccines which use an atennuated form of cowpox, because cowpox antigens are close enough to smallpox antigens to generate antibodies in infected persons that protect against smallpox.
The scientists should be looking at the cases where a human is infected with a mild form of disease A, that is mild in its effects on the infected compared to the effects disease A has on infected persons.
Yet what do we see in the modern field of virology? We see a scorn for the "empirical" methods of the past, and a reverence for non-empirical methods--working with the new molecular level info that the scientists of today have, that scientists of yore did not have. We see animals used to test potions in, as opposed to surveyed for infection by mild cousins of diseases dangerous to humans. We see little of looking to utilize, animals or people infected with the less dangerous cousins of dangerous diseases.
Often-times, an animal or person who has a mild form of a serious virus dangerous to humans, or is infected with a mild genetic cousin of a serious virus is unavailable. This means certain things are missing. The cousin of or the mild form of the virus could be nonexistent. The mild cousin or form could be in existence, yet it could still have failed to have come into contact with humans or animals so as to have been able to produce relatively mild symptoms.
If the cousin of the dangerous virus has to be created, newly available genetic history info such as for example, virus A differentiated from virus B 7000 years ago due to the interaction of rats with early human agriculture, can be used to create the new mild version; the processes of natural historic genetic differentiation, such as what some might call evolution (or is that devolution?), and such as mutation, can be mimicked.
If the problem is that the mild cousin or form of the dangerous virus exists, but has not yet had a chance to interact with humans or animals to produce mild symptoms in them, it might be possible to solve the problem by bringing viruses into closer ontact with humans and animals, compared to the contact between such in the natural historical state. One would expect this would be done carefully, via experiments on humans preceded by experiments on animals.
Either way, whether through the creation of mild cousin/forms or the introduction of experimental contacts between viruses and the animal world, the goal is to find a mild cousin/form of a dangerous virus so it can be used to inoculate humans against dangerous forms of the virus.
It strikes me as odd that the empiricism of the past should be scorned in favor of a 'test the new computer generated potion in the monkey' mentality. Looking at things empirically, one can see how milder forms of a virus differ from progressively stronger forms of a virus by nature. This can clue one in on the question of what structure he or she should attempt to impart to the new mild form of a virus taht he or she hopes to produce. It should be easier to induce variations that mimic the variations found in nature, compared to the dificulty of attempting to force nature to conform to an abstraction in the head of a scientist.
Looking at things empirically, should clue one in on how change can be induced in a virus, by way of mimicking processes such as perhaps new interactions between animals plants and humans, that gave rise to new different members of various virus families.
Looking at things empirically, one can see that substances that cause mild symptoms in the milk of animals, should be searched for or experimentally produced. Given that the human is so to speak a kind of milk, such substances could well be cousins of substances such as viruses that cause severe dangerous symptoms in man, and useful for the purpose of inoculating humans against the effects of such dangerous substances. It would be relatively easy to alter such substances that produce symptoms in the milk-producing organs and milk of animals, into new substances that produce mild, inoculatory symptoms in man whereas their previous original natural versions did not.
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
These are my opinions at the present time, which may not coincide with reality
posted by David Virgil at 7:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home