I think that Gould and others should consider the likely explanation that there are no such things as retrovirus species with any kind of specific protein character(see the Perth Group on HIV-all their criticisms can be applied to retroviruses as a whole). Gould is on to something as far as exosomes go, but he does not need to presume the existence of a retrovirus. If you simply combine exosomes with differing toxicological/stress based factors you have a better explanation that fills some key gaps, for instance: "Although the Trojan exosome hypothesis does not ex-plain the distinguishing pathologies caused by different retroviruses, it does offer a mechanistic basis for some of the most clinically important aspects of retroviral infection." Gould A toxicological explanation fills that gap. Also lulz at 48:30. Shows how compromised the NIH is and puts scientific funding in a very bad light by not following the evidence.
I would suggest looking into toxicogenomics and actually look into the toxicological factor of viral diseases. There is this paper out of Korea that came out in late 2016 that significantly lends support to the Perth Group oxidative stress hypothesis of HIV/AIDS: koreauniv.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/expression-of-exosomal-and-cellular-micrornas-as-biomarkers-for-t The 3 VOCs in that paper figure heavily in the drugs that gay partiers were using(and still using) heavily in the 70s and 80s. It lends evidence to 'HIV' being an edited exosome and not an exogenous viral agent. I'm not denying that there is some type of infection that occurs but I would argue all you need for infection is the interplay of toxicity, stress and released exosomes and other vesicles. I argue that biological stress can be communicative and contagious with infectious toxic induced vesicles being the direct vectors.
You’re misconstruing my hypothesis. I entertain a modified oxidative stress hypothesis as put forth by The Perth Group. This covers more then just gay club drug contexts.
Hello, Please can I just double check that you are saying a thing that I am suspecting from picking through some scientific papers, that actually a virus is an exosome. I am not a medical person. Best wishes
@@fair1831 viruses and exosomes have traits in common but I suggest you get aquinted with basic cellular biology first then it won't seem so contraversial. Science believe it or not fully allows for debate but not when people are obsfucating and dragging in outsiders using fancy lingo to dazzle them.
At the end of the day, nomenclature and infinite reductionism notwithstanding, the entire field of virology depends on whether the offending particles enter the body from outside the body, or whether the offending particles originate from inside the body and leave the body. I'm not going to take the time to break down the following analogous elements (there are many and if you've got a good brain you can identify all of them) but suppose one were to make a video capturing the early morning putting out of garbage to curbside from inside the various houses and letting the garbage truck later take the garbage away. Running the video forward, you got, by way of analogy, exosomes. Now... ...run the same video backwards and you got, by way of the same analogy, viruses.
I think that Gould and others should consider the likely explanation that there are no such things as retrovirus species with any kind of specific protein character(see the Perth Group on HIV-all their criticisms can be applied to retroviruses as a whole). Gould is on to something as far as exosomes go, but he does not need to presume the existence of a retrovirus. If you simply combine exosomes with differing toxicological/stress based factors you have a better explanation that fills some key gaps, for instance:
"Although the Trojan exosome hypothesis does not ex-plain the distinguishing pathologies caused by different retroviruses, it does offer a mechanistic basis for some of the most clinically important aspects of retroviral infection." Gould
A toxicological explanation fills that gap.
Also lulz at 48:30. Shows how compromised the NIH is and puts scientific funding in a very bad light by not following the evidence.
I would suggest looking into toxicogenomics and actually look into the toxicological factor of viral diseases. There is this paper out of Korea that came out in late 2016 that significantly lends support to the Perth Group oxidative stress hypothesis of HIV/AIDS:
koreauniv.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/expression-of-exosomal-and-cellular-micrornas-as-biomarkers-for-t
The 3 VOCs in that paper figure heavily in the drugs that gay partiers were using(and still using) heavily in the 70s and 80s. It lends evidence to 'HIV' being an edited exosome and not an exogenous viral agent. I'm not denying that there is some type of infection that occurs but I would argue all you need for infection is the interplay of toxicity, stress and released exosomes and other vesicles. I argue that biological stress can be communicative and contagious with infectious toxic induced vesicles being the direct vectors.
@@Vice81 how does the VOC hypothesis match up with HIV elsewhere in the world without gay parties 😂
You’re misconstruing my hypothesis. I entertain a modified oxidative stress hypothesis as put forth by The Perth Group. This covers more then just gay club drug contexts.
Hello,
Please can I just double check that you are saying a thing that I am suspecting from picking through some scientific papers, that actually a virus is an exosome.
I am not a medical person.
Best wishes
@@fair1831 viruses and exosomes have traits in common but I suggest you get aquinted with basic cellular biology first then it won't seem so contraversial. Science believe it or not fully allows for debate but not when people are obsfucating and dragging in outsiders using fancy lingo to dazzle them.
can barely hear audio ...
In conclusion, they have discovered the anus of the cell. That is the area from which the cell releases exosomal waste. Brilliant.
Audio is SOOOOOOO low :(
At the end of the day, nomenclature and infinite reductionism notwithstanding, the entire field of virology depends on whether the offending particles enter the body from outside the body, or whether the offending particles originate from inside the body and leave the body.
I'm not going to take the time to break down the following analogous elements (there are many and if you've got a good brain you can identify all of them) but suppose one were to make a video capturing the early morning putting out of garbage to curbside from inside the various houses and letting the garbage truck later take the garbage away.
Running the video forward, you got, by way of analogy, exosomes.
Now...
...run the same video backwards and you got, by way of the same analogy, viruses.