Add new comment

If you understand and elaborate on his ideas of biological stress and then these viral contagious events make sense without the contrived pathological self-propagating theories of germ theory. I would also throw in the ideas of Ray Peat and Jamie Cunliffe and his critique of the immune system model for his morphostasis model.

I would agree that there is a vector of contact communicative disease(I don't like the term infection) but I see these as vesicles(endogenous not exogenous in origin) and vesicles alone. Think of them as occupying the same niche in animal and plant organisms as phages do in single cell organisms. I think they basically operate as transcriptional regulators of sorts and viral disorders are basically overloads of transcriptions due to some type of perturbed process either acute or long term. Something like Ebola would be the former and 'hiv' disease would be the latter. In both instances you are talking about some kind of underlying toxic stress factor that sets the vesicles into over regulating motion. With 'hiv' it's oxidation and with ebola it's probably tied to cyanide and mercury as connected to toxic mining pits in places like central africa.

TMV(the first virus) and HIV(the most studied) have clear toxic stress connections. The former was discovered by a chemical engineer for fucks sake(Adolf Mayer). The plants he was looking at were clearly toxic stressed plants that were going through a viral event. This is also the more parsimonious way to look at this all as the consensus counter point leads to these silly contrived theories of cellular hijacking or viruses as the prime beginning of simple life(look up Margulis and symbiogenesis you fucking retards).

There is value in some things Pasteur discovered and he definitely played a role in a proper understanding of contact communicative disease but the structure of his theory as disease resulting from self-propagating pathological living species needs to be jettisoned.