I am not sure that you have read some of the original papers of Pasteur and others in the 19th century. See e.g., BMJ 1887 of March 5: 532-534.
Let us start with the premise that a bite from a dog, or other mammal, results in a specific set of symptoms. Why would we attribute said symptoms to a singl…
I am not sure that you have read some of the original papers of Pasteur and others in the 19th century. See e.g., BMJ 1887 of March 5: 532-534.
Let us start with the premise that a bite from a dog, or other mammal, results in a specific set of symptoms. Why would we attribute said symptoms to a single, never isolated, never replicated, agent? Further, I do not suppose that you claim that EVERY bite from a so-called "rabies infected" animal results in the same symptoms. How many never reported cases are there?
Pasteur was injecting material into the brains of rabbits and dogs, and making biological soups and claimed that if he injected that material, he would cure or prevent rabies.
About those "lab" settings. Can you send me a paper?
In sum, as the term is conceived at present (Summers 2009), I am credulous to believe that there is a rabies "virus".
(Summers (2009) claims that “viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that can exist as potentially active [sic], but inert [sic] entities, outside of cells”. Encyclopedia of Microbiology: 546–552).
Recall, before the 1900, "virus" simply meant "disease." (Have you seen the Lanka presentation on the evolution of the term virus?)
Hence for Pasteur, rabies virus (aka, hydrophobia - do you really believe that any dogs feared or had an aversion to water to the point of death?) was "rabies disease".
Pasteur claimed that the disease was transferred by a bite. But that begs the question, "what caused the FIRST case?"
And what were the pictures of "rabies" before 1933 (before the electron microscope)?
I do not claim that every bite would cause rabies symptoms. I don't think virologists even claim 100% infection rate upon exposure to viruses. The premise of a single agent is pretty consistent with the standard description of rabid dogs every now and then. A flu, rabies or ebola have fairly consistent symptoms with victims in very different local circumstances, such as importing a fellow who causes a man in another country to have the disease. It's a challenge for no-virus terrain theory, I think, to explain the importing of a disease without importing the environment a man with the disease lived in.
In regards to hydrophobia and the appeal to incredulousness, yes I do believe it's possible to be so mentally damaged for whatever reason that you would avoid drinking water. There are stories of stranger and I've visited quite a few mental institutions myself to give me the belief that behavior can become very warped. If a virus, let's say, induced an extreme fever then their thinking would become incredibly strange after a while.
That's not to say that modern theory is pristine. It's incredibly flawed and hard to study because people are so damaged by environmental things like vaccines and pollution and diet. But the original terrain theory said that the microbes appeared when the terrain was weak, not that the microbes didn't exist at all. The specific nature by which a weak diseased man dies is going to be determined by the microbe that can take advantage of it and those produce reliably consistent damage that can be treated or at least supported until the person's health can be restored.
As to what caused the first case, while I can speculate, logically there's no need to explain where a virus originated to determine what it does and how to treat it. I don't need to say where the first human heart came from in order to treat a heart attack. A mechanic doesn't need to tell you who invented the car to fix it.
(This is short - I will read the article and respond later)
Thanks for the reply but ... with VIRAL theory, the claim is that a virus exists and then is TRANSFERRED to another body. If Rabies is ONLY caused by virus; AND that virus MUST be transferred by a bite, then how did the FIRST case of rabies come to be?
Heart attack and or car troubles are not analogous.
Dear Dave, thank you for your question.
I am not sure that you have read some of the original papers of Pasteur and others in the 19th century. See e.g., BMJ 1887 of March 5: 532-534.
Let us start with the premise that a bite from a dog, or other mammal, results in a specific set of symptoms. Why would we attribute said symptoms to a single, never isolated, never replicated, agent? Further, I do not suppose that you claim that EVERY bite from a so-called "rabies infected" animal results in the same symptoms. How many never reported cases are there?
Pasteur was injecting material into the brains of rabbits and dogs, and making biological soups and claimed that if he injected that material, he would cure or prevent rabies.
About those "lab" settings. Can you send me a paper?
In sum, as the term is conceived at present (Summers 2009), I am credulous to believe that there is a rabies "virus".
(Summers (2009) claims that “viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that can exist as potentially active [sic], but inert [sic] entities, outside of cells”. Encyclopedia of Microbiology: 546–552).
Recall, before the 1900, "virus" simply meant "disease." (Have you seen the Lanka presentation on the evolution of the term virus?)
Hence for Pasteur, rabies virus (aka, hydrophobia - do you really believe that any dogs feared or had an aversion to water to the point of death?) was "rabies disease".
Pasteur claimed that the disease was transferred by a bite. But that begs the question, "what caused the FIRST case?"
And what were the pictures of "rabies" before 1933 (before the electron microscope)?
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
I found one about cats and rabies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3516030/
I do not claim that every bite would cause rabies symptoms. I don't think virologists even claim 100% infection rate upon exposure to viruses. The premise of a single agent is pretty consistent with the standard description of rabid dogs every now and then. A flu, rabies or ebola have fairly consistent symptoms with victims in very different local circumstances, such as importing a fellow who causes a man in another country to have the disease. It's a challenge for no-virus terrain theory, I think, to explain the importing of a disease without importing the environment a man with the disease lived in.
In regards to hydrophobia and the appeal to incredulousness, yes I do believe it's possible to be so mentally damaged for whatever reason that you would avoid drinking water. There are stories of stranger and I've visited quite a few mental institutions myself to give me the belief that behavior can become very warped. If a virus, let's say, induced an extreme fever then their thinking would become incredibly strange after a while.
That's not to say that modern theory is pristine. It's incredibly flawed and hard to study because people are so damaged by environmental things like vaccines and pollution and diet. But the original terrain theory said that the microbes appeared when the terrain was weak, not that the microbes didn't exist at all. The specific nature by which a weak diseased man dies is going to be determined by the microbe that can take advantage of it and those produce reliably consistent damage that can be treated or at least supported until the person's health can be restored.
As to what caused the first case, while I can speculate, logically there's no need to explain where a virus originated to determine what it does and how to treat it. I don't need to say where the first human heart came from in order to treat a heart attack. A mechanic doesn't need to tell you who invented the car to fix it.
Dear Dave, did you read the Rosenau (1919) study on "flu"?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/221687
Dave, I only see the abstract. Can you access the full pdf? Thanks
Dear Dave,
(This is short - I will read the article and respond later)
Thanks for the reply but ... with VIRAL theory, the claim is that a virus exists and then is TRANSFERRED to another body. If Rabies is ONLY caused by virus; AND that virus MUST be transferred by a bite, then how did the FIRST case of rabies come to be?
Heart attack and or car troubles are not analogous.
Best