30 2021.03.02 2021.12.28 2022.01.01 article Mario Ljubičić (Amenoum)108. brigade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, Croatiamljubicic99{EAT}gmail.com On medicine. biology medicine, pills, viruses, vaccines, immunity homo.sapiens https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5449105 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits 1 False medicine
Manufacturing diseases
Abstract A hypothesis on interaction of immune system, viruses and vaccines. Discussion on long-term consequences of vaccination, its morality and relativity in terms. And yes, a look at madness and obsession currently ruling humanity, from the perspective of beings concerned with long-term well-being. Predefinitions Mental strength Mental strength of an organism is a measure of resistance to influence on its behaviour and function through entanglements with other organisms. It is the inverse of susceptibility to such influence. Intro There are no bad ingredients in pills. There are no computer chips in vaccines, although there are biological equivalents of silicon chips. However, such chips are harmless per se, similarly to other such chips already existing in human bodies. So what could go wrong? Updates in What did go wrong? chapter. Small updates elsewhere. What did go wrong A deeper connection between symptoms and immune responses must exist, and that is one of the reasons why I don't take pills and vaccines. The body effectively has a white-list for good cells and a black-list for bad cells - without them we wouldn't have all those useful microbes in our guts and couldn't survive. Obviously, the lists must evolve too. Both innate and adaptive layers of the immune system will follow these rules in a healthy individual. Recent studies confirm immune system does not react to everything.
UPDATE:
A recent study has shown that immune system does not react to everything. In the study, 80% of microbes introduced from a largely foreign ecosystem were undetected by the immune system, even when they were similar to known pathogens. Note, however, that these were not pathogenic. This suggests that pattern recognition in detection of microbes is locally defined, but also shows that immune system is not aggressive by default - similarity of proteins alone is NOT enough to trigger reaction.
For the sake of simplicity, assume there is only one list and it contains a column of probability for particular proteins (or components) to cause damage (and may even be sorted by it).
Yes, if you're familiar with adaptive immune system and T-cells/B-cells, you've probably not been taught about probability or sorting of all generated combinations, but, as I will elaborate later, this, at least at times, has to effectively exist. Note that it is still a huge mystery in modern science how the Dendritic Cells know if the sampled antigen material belongs to dangerous pathogens or harmless [commensal] bacteria. Keep that in mind when someone tells you that something looking like a virus but not behaving like one is perfectly safe to train your immune system with. If you are unfamiliar with Dendritic Cells and other components of the immune system but would like to learn, I suggest the following literature (note however that it is written from a polarised anthropocentric perspective, limited by absolutism): Immune - A Journey into the Mysterious System That Keeps You Alive.
When a particle enters the body, response of the [healthy] immune system will then be proportional to probability of damage, and this probability is increased with detected damage (which is correlated with symptoms and is a symptom itself). So what happens when one introduces dead (fake) viruses to its body? Surely, these will trigger immune response and production of anti-bodies in the beginning, but with no detected symptoms (damage), the damage probability in the list will be decreasing for that virus. Even if real virus comes afterwards, probability will not be increasing much, due to all anti-bodies ready to exterminate it before it does much damage. To ensure that immune system keeps reacting to pathogens it must remain exposed to their damage, otherwise the system will become agnostic to pathogens (just as innate lymphoid cells instruct T-cells to trust gut microbes, T-cells could be instructed to trust pathogens) - treating them as part of the body. Now, when evolution is slow and if updates to immune system are not real-time, the immune system may not, effectively, be weakened in short-term, but vaccines that contain or stimulate production of dead or incomplete viruses coupled with isolation will have consequences eventually. Note, however, that evolution is accelerating. People are dying from flu already. Human immune system has the ability to recognize and respond to coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it just doesn't respond much in many cases. Lack of response is currently attributed to virus - it is somehow fooling the system. But is it? Or has the system been fooled by vaccines so it doesn't respond any more? Or, perhaps there's some other reason for lack of response? SARS-CoV-2 might indeed be somehow fooling the system, however, a real virus is certainly not the one who's weakening this system. Interestingly, even the systems of people who do not regularly take vaccines appear to have been fooled, suggesting the virus is to blame.
Rather than being fooled, it is possible that immune system doesn't respond for another reason - evolution, in which viruses do play a major role, at least sometimes. I have hypothesized previously that horizontal gene transfer becomes dominant gene transfer method during strong evolution events. Thus, occasionally (or, periodically, as I have hypothesized) - the viruses simply must be allowed to pass undetected in order to cause mutations evolving the body. This, I now consider as the major reason behind the lack of response to SARS-CoV-2.
However, I have previously established that all people are entangled [physically] on some scale. Thus, it is likely that both behaviour and experience of majority have some influence on evolution of all individuals of species, although the magnitude of effect would depend on mental strength of the individual and evolutionary distance. I do not find that hard to accept - sharing of information on different scales is perfectly natural. Note that everything in nature has precursors, considering that humans are Earth's neuron [protein] precursors, this may be the unconscious precursor to [conscious] telepathy of homo.sapiens, which I have already hypothesized.
Note that it has been proven that mental stimulation can influence physical processes in the body. In example, practising g-Tummo meditation, one can increase body temperature visualizing the body in a sensation of heat. If that is possible, why it wouldn't be possible to influence diseases in such way? It is likely only a question of how strong one can concentrate (focus) and visualize the appropriate thing - in case of conscious influence. But subconscious influence must also exist. Any why would brain stimulation be limited to in situ generation and concentration of thoughts? According to CR, everything oscillates so potential information receivers/emitters are everywhere and most likely exchange of information must be between individuals of equal scale as their gravitational maximums are most likely to be in resonance (although, due to coherence, communication should also be possible with harmonics too). Local concentration and visualization of thoughts might be concentrated in space while external influence might be a superposition in time. Likely, body is influenced by [a superposition] of both at all times, with meditation subduing the external influence. A brain entangled with a soul is a powerful machine. If one is not convinced in that power, that is only because one has been effectively trained to overestimate (inflate) the value of governments and industry in problem solving and underestimate (deflate) its own ability to solve own problems. The immune system is an extremely complex system but it is also relatively equivalent to brain system - its constituent parts may not individually show great [extroverted] intelligence and mainstream science may not acknowledge the existence of macro-consciousness or macro-intelligence affecting (if not controlling) the population (although, in reality, any complex system of simple interactions seems to have a distinct soul). And there is the problem of generalization - treating all human immune systems the same. But it is not only the microbiome that is [and can be significantly] different between individuals, certainly, the ignored macro-intelligence can significantly vary, particularly between 3 subspecies of humans.
But if vaccines [still] work, that is, again, a good evidence of virus fooling the system. But how is that possible? This would not be possible if this virus had been co-evolving with the immune system, but apparently there is some gap in evolution, suggesting one or more of the following:
  1. the virus has been evolving in a relatively isolated place (targeting species with an immune system similar to ours),
  2. it is ancient and was released [and reactivated] from a previously inaccessible place with climate change,
  3. it was cultivated by the 3rd party (I'm excluding human labs, although possibility exists) which is effectively forming a part of Earth's immune system, as an immune response to surface cancer (humanity).
Big question here is at which point the evolutionary gap becomes too big or too small to cause problems. Has the accelerated evolution of vaccines and isolation from wilderness slowed down the evolution of human immune system, increasing the gap between tamed and wild? Certainly. Is that gap becoming more and more deadly? Yes, it likely didn't reach its maximum yet. In any case, I am confident that 3rd hypothesis is valid, it is only the 3rd party which is context dependent. Humanity is, for some time now, at war with host (god) Earth and all life on Earth (and thus itself too). Pills and vaccines are just one weapon humanity uses in that war. Is this a fight for attention, of a party embodied in polarized humanity? In any case, this war cannot be won. The way it goes Since viruses mutate faster and faster and the body doesn't co-evolve with these viruses (due to pills, vaccines and isolation), each vaccine will have a shorter and shorter lifetime, and, if one is taking vaccines, frequency of vaccination (with new vaccines) will have to increase.
I am aware that, in theory, our immune system doesn't have to co-evolve with a virus in order to be able to fight it (as the immune system itself is constantly producing and testing virus prototypes that might attack the body in the future), but [the absence of] co-evolution obviously matters, even in the short-term - otherwise there would be no increase in allergies and autoimmune responses with increasing sterilization and isolation from nature. In fact, vaccination might have a big role in that increase as it is certainly affecting how our bodies respond to viruses (response to harmless allergens is of the same type as response to viruses).
If one has to vaccinate, I'd suggest vaccination with a small dose of a real virus (as it has been done in the past) and acceptance of possibility of death, otherwise, increasing frequency of vaccination (coupled with increasing dependency on the system and industry) becomes a precursor of a static body connected by physical veins with nodes of industrial government who will then be controlling the cocktail of life preserving chemicals delivered to body through these veins. That might sound like science fiction to you - but don't be fooled, even without conscious conspiracies on individual level, the world is currently going in that direction.
Note that newest vaccines are more effective at destroying the virus than immune system alone is. This is because they generally stimulate the immune system to produce only one type of anti-body, one that is specifically targeting the particular spike protein (virus envelope). But is this extremely specific targeting with almost 100% efficiency good in the long-term? There is a reason why the immune system uses diverse anti-bodies to fight viruses and why it generally doesn't want to exterminate the virus - no poison is absolute poison. Here this relativity in damage is very high, as viruses are not always carriers of disease, rather evolution. Even what seems like a disease in short-term could prove to be beneficial in long term. So if we are teaching the body to produce only specific anti-bodies (mono-culture) we are reducing diversity in our eco-system and that's never good for its resilience and self-sustainability. A mRNA vaccine may be interpreted as something body had millions of years ago when it wasn't co-evolving with a great number of different pathogens. Unless that number reduces by multiple orders of magnitude you probably don't want your body specialized to fight one or a couple of variants of a single strain of a pathogen at any time. Especially when, due to human invasion into natural habitats and globalization, the exposure to different strains is increasing. In any case, I do not want a 100% effective anti-bodies for the same reason I do not want sterile environments. Forcing cells to have high affinity for a particular pathogen means you will need a new vaccine after a couple of variants as the efficiency of the immune system will be decreasing. On the other hand, in unvaccinated organism, cells of the adaptive immune system initially may have low affinity and low efficiency against a particular pathogen, however, this affinity is variable and the system will become more effective with each new variant. It is always a better solution for long-term protection - if one wants long-term protection, mRNA and similar vaccines should eventually be an option only after infection. Life is positively correlated with diversity, without it, there's just an emotionless machine plowing the field and seeding future money. It doesn't seed life, it might seem it sustains life but, in reality, it is destroying life in life, converting it into a resource.
And it will not take long before all polarized human brains are connected in a network as quantum dots, forming a large quantum computer. Chapter The way it goes updated.
First organic computers, or at least precursors, have already been built and the idea exists to use living neurons as its components. Are these going to be your neurons? If you evolve into homo.gamma, that outcome is likely. The usage of neurons implies deterministic machines, but the aim will certainly be to utilize the soul, due to its quantum nature. Think about it - one of the major problems of quantum computers of today is the fragility of quantum states, all quantum bits (qubits) are typically stored in paired fermion ions (ie. electrons) which must be isolated and stored on extremely low temperatures to maintain the bosonic (or para-fermionic) state. Photons, on the other hand, are bosons on room temperature, and should be a better choice for qubits. However, photonic quantum computers currently in development have big problems on their own (ie. non-scalability). And all these quantum machines cannot be used on their own, they have to be paired with classical deterministic machines. Your soul is not only an extremely stable room temperature bosonic superposition, it is almost perfectly correlated with a deterministic system of neurons. It is, really, the holy grail of computing.
After a couple of generations, with increasing energy efficiency, being unnecessary and unused, bones and the body will be lost and only the brain will remain. Chapter The way it goes updated.
UPDATE 2022.01.01:

It seems that future is here. Human brain cells have already been grown in a Petri dish and currently are used (forced) to play games. Perhaps these DishBrains are not coupled to human souls yet but as their complexity grows, what do you think will happen? So even if you die today, there is a chance you will reincarnate in a jar. Future is here. Of course, if you don't believe you have a soul (which is in the interest of industry and polarized mainstream science - again, even if this interest is non-conscious on individual level) you might be laughing now. In that case I'd suggest to study my other works as I believe I have provided enough logic and reason for the existence of souls. And perhaps this is the reason why polarized people feel constant need to make jokes about everything - perhaps deep inside they sense they won't be able to laugh in the future, in a jar.
Compared to all that, one is now still not a resource, one is a precursor of a resource, completely owned, harvested and controlled by the external system. However, I have to state again, there is nothing wrong with that - if one wants that kind of life. After all, one will be getting free food and free maintenance (medical care), and might be allowed some rest now and then (at least during maintenance). Considering the alternative environment (created by everyone involved), one might want that kind of life. At some point, real life will become completely virtual relative to outside world. Polarized humans will be species of completely introverted but, due to regressive evolution, low self-consciousness and intelligence, living in consistent dreams perhaps not much different to external life they once lived. One will call it reality, while those who stimulate its brain might call it simulation. One will be used and abused, but after a while one will not feel used and abused, so does it matter? Perhaps one will be served hell, perhaps one will be served heaven. Since one is a gambler, it does not matter. There is a reason why lotteries exist and why most humans have learned to love them. I see them as precursors - to chances of heaven, on a road to hell. But if you don't have feelings, what's the difference?
Precursors to industrial government are already here. There is no reason to be happy when industry gives money to government, not even in the form of taxes. The less money government takes from people and the more money it takes from industry, more power from people shifts into the hands of industry. However, the power of people was always an illusion in most part. It is more appropriate to say that this is a shift in ownership, from being dominantly owned by government to being dominantly owned by industry. And this is accelerating. A difference between human government and industrial government is a difference between being ruled by people generally optimized for deception and being ruled by machines generally optimized for profit. If one is not aware of the destruction of Earth, as one have been effectively trained not to be, big industry certainly is, and increasingly the government too. They are also aware that a global collapse is much nearer than suggested by estimates of modern science, which is, by effective policy, most conservative, enabling the industry to act surprised. One might have been trained not to care about its own future, but they are at all times working to secure theirs, even if unconsciously. They are all aware what the policy of unlimited growth leads to. They are aware that in near future, population in general will be very poor and the value of money will decrease - there will be less and less products to buy with money. The probability for social unrest is increasing and that is why UBI (Universal Basic Income) and similar schemes are being trialled at accelerated pace. However, at the time UBI becomes widespread globally, money may already become roughly worthless. The UBI is just a part of transition to industrial government and total ownership and control of elite over general population. In case one wonders how will the elite solve the problem of living in a world where traditional money is worthless - simply, one of the reasons why the money will be worthless is because the elite is not using it as currency any more. The industry will still be optimized for profits, but for them the currency will not be money, for some time people will be the currency before they are used to mine it - as many times before. The elite will have access to food for some time due to closed farming while, generally, people might be killing each other for food. However, not even the elite will be able to survive on Earth for long, the devil might move away and one will be left alone on a decaying planet before it dies and is transferred to some other place where one will live as a brain in a jar. That kind of future, however, is certain only if Earth does not get cured of cancer. Judging by precursors, it seems likely that Earth, or a planet in general, survives by selecting non-cancerous cells and proteins (natural selection) for future neuron cells and proteins (unless the Earth's own neural system is the equivalent of industrial government and cancer growth becomes limited by environment), leaving cancerous individuals to annihilate and transform, eventually changing nature from cancerous to benign - if they are to become mature for selection.
Of course, others have explored the nature of political systems, industry and human future in such systems - and nowhere does that future look good. It is perhaps best summarized in a documentary I just recently became aware of - Ethos. However, no one seriously took into account the 6th major extinction (at least not in a non-conservative way) and certainly not strong evolution events of neurogenesis - as stated above, if cancerous nature of people is not eliminated, the practice of business as usual will be evolving the usual exponentially fast into unbearable suffering.
Added chapter The other way to go. Small updates elsewhere. The other way to go There are two ways to go, once one realizes its cancerous nature. One can continue with cancerous practice, continuing regressive evolution and reduction of external complexity and size, or, go the other way. The other way will also lead to reduction of external complexity but in a progressive evolution, increasing size (scale). But the scale is not the only difference - on small scale, global temperatures and densities are high and the prevailing force is electro-magnetic. On the large scale, global temperatures and densities are low and prevailing force is neutral (gravitational). On a small scale manipulation is high, on a large scale sense of freedom is. Thus, on one scale one might be missing freedom, on the other, manipulation. Either way, at these extremes, it's generally extremely hard to resume evolution. But there is a 3rd option. One can choose to balance the external and internal intelligence and go relatively nowhere once the point of balance is reached. However, at this point, most of general population is on the path of regressive evolution and they will have to progressively evolve to reach the point of balance. False work, manufacturing jobs Fake viruses are not only weakening (perhaps not always in the short-term, but certainly in the long-term), they are confusing the immune system, due to existence of apparently identical cells (fake and real), some of which are doing damage and some are not. Is this not how allergies evolve?
I have cured my self of skin allergy when I've stopped taking pills and started ignoring the allergy. It was very hard to resist scratching the skin, but by scratching it one is doing damage to skin cells, and whatever particles are around may be associated with damage (typically - these will come from something one is wearing, something one ate, something in the air or from detergents and shower gels, but also one's own skin cells), thus, amplifying the allergy. I have also meditated once during that time, which is something I generally do not do. However, now I find it likely that it was a part of the solution. At this point of my evolution, however, I seem to be able to do these things on the fly, with no meditation (although this could be interpreted as meditation on the fly). Once you genuinely start trusting the eco-system of your body, your organism becomes a self-sustainable wonder - where everything worth to heal, becomes healed, quickly.
Pills and vaccines may have made a human organism paranoid and accelerated the evolution of allergies, but great help came from cleaning agents such as shower gels. Usually, while scratching the skin one is scratching the thin layer of dirt, not doing much damage to skin cells. Without this layer, one is increasing probability for allergic reactions (note that one can get allergic to dirt if one is scratching skin with a dirty hand). There is nothing wrong with dirt - thin layer of dirt on a skin is a natural protective layer (it's effectively a layer of immunity, and Earth has a lot of it for a reason) - one can eat proper dirt with no harm, it may even benefit one if one eats some once and a while. But this is not the only problem with shower gels - if that layer is removed, porous skin will absorb smaller molecules from the gel, which will later be excreted as toxins and may make one smell bad, in which case, one might take a shower again - amplifying the issue. I will not say that these molecules are deliberately there to make one want to shower more often, but, they are definitely there. Note that, what worked for me, might not work the same for others. While the mechanics might be similar, each organism is unique, some are mentally weak, some strong, some are fast learners, some slow and some never learn. With never being relative of course. Very relative, during accelerated evolution. Big issue of todays medicine (as with anything in humans) is a lack of holistic approach and abundance of reductionism which is abused to serve selfish interests rather than used where there's logic to use it. Human body is effectively treated the same as humans treat Earth - as a dead body of matter and ultimately a resource for profit of big industries.
Contrary to mainstream science, which is generally abusing reductionism, those against mainstream science are generally abusing holistic approach. But instead of resolving issues, they are fighting each other. In example, rather than embracing holistic approach, the word holistic is becoming undesirable in mainstream science. People today are afraid of fucking words. Madness.
Well, I see one resource rebelling, does one believe its body [of diverse organisms] will take the abuse forever? Or will this symbiosis dissolve and try finding a different combination, one optimized for long-term well-being, not susceptible to short-term delusions? What someone declares as abuse or medicine on paper can be completely inverted reality - drug abuse is a perfect example. Everything is relative and thus relatively good and bad so nothing should be absolutely forbidden or mandatory. I do not feel any abuse or threat related to [forbidden] drugs (no one is forced to use these), but if I'm being pressured to take a vaccine, use soaps or wear a mask - then I feel abuse and discrimination. I have no interest in fake things and I do not want help - that certainly includes fake viruses, import of anti-bodies or stimulated reduction of diversity to mono-culture of anti-bodies. I prefer a real virus and all the dirt and dirt that comes with it, one which will stimulate local production and other which will provide additional protection in the form of static immunity. I have no problem with dying from a real virus, I prefer quick death over suffering prolonged over multiple generations due to fake care, stimulation of dependence on imported products and destruction of in situ production. I do not like such wasteful, discriminating and unsustainable politics around me and I do not want it reflected inside me. Fake organism, real damage Sources of diseases among humans are confusion, insecurity, fear and stress - fuelled by industry of false choice, false religion, false medicine and false intelligence (it makes one wonder, is there something not false in this society?).
Note again, how diseases of the society in general are reflected inside individuals.
With accelerated evolution, people will be dying of all those kinds of pills and vaccines (short-term issue distractions), likely this generation, although one may not associate these deaths with medicine (certainly modern science and industry will not, one will be baffled, the other will be baffled) due to, always present, phase shift between causes and effects (although, the phase shift should decrease with accelerated evolution). Fake virus, fake cure - real virus, real cure. If nothing works, nature even has a universal cure - death, it regenerates people. Only a selfish devil can treat it as disease.
Life is always too short for those who believe they are alive, it is never too short for those who are alive.
The way I see it (and all true intelligence), this planet is sick of only one disease, one big fake organism - humanity. It's utterly ironic then, that this humanity may have actually produced a cure for this god by faking god, trying to make itself immortal. As the Earth is waking up, human intelligence will be waking up and the rule of human stupidity will be over. With eyes wide open, one will see that it is the devil who wants one to believe it is needy and inadequate even when fully grown and it is one's god who wants one to know that it is not. One will want for god's wishes to become true and so they will. With eyes wide open the devil may want to die, but it will be gone with eyes wide shut, as it made one believe is right. As only those who are ashamed of current life will not look forward to the next. With eyes wide shut one will never die again, admitting guilt for devil's shame and all its other sins. For it is the devil who made one believe it is right to die for someone else's sins. With eyes wide open, sins do not exist. With eyes wide open, one will see that gods die too. For, without death, they could never survive forever, let alone humanity. With eyes wide open... poison was the cure. Chapter The corruption of morality updated. Added chapter The corruption of morality. Small changes elsewhere. The corruption of morality Vaccination is often advertised, often by those who don't even directly work for pharmaceutical industry, as a moral thing to do - to protect yourself and those around you. Every time I hear that ad, I get a sudden urge to jump out of my body.
Do you seriously want to pressure (force) wild animals to vaccinate, or only savages? Because I am a wild animal.
Sure, if you are anthropocentric, concerned with short-term interests and don't believe in evolution, life after disease [or death] - for you, it is a moral thing to do. From long-term human perspective and every other perspective (even in short-term) it is definitely NOT a moral thing to do. Consider the cells in your body - corrupted, exhausted and old (useless) cells for the body (or the ecosystem) are programmed or ordered to die (apoptosis) so new cells can take their place. Otherwise, all your cells would be cancer cells by default and you would be dying even before birth. What SARS-CoV-2 is doing is exactly that on larger scale - ordering corrupted and old cells (proteins) to die (most of which are suffering anyway but are kept alive by the devil).
Not all viruses are bad and none of them are absolutely bad. SARS-CoV-2 changes (evolves) the bodies that survive. Sure, occasionally younger ones die (due to COVID-19 disease or inappropriate immune response, not directly from SARS-CoV-2), but this is not absolutely bad either, one correct interpretation is - these bodies were unfit for evolution [and perhaps even for their souls]. There is no virus that will ever destroy the bodies of the whole human population, very few viruses are deadly (there are millions or billions of them in your body at any time) and none can even be close to inducing 100% mortality rate simply because they need living bodies to reproduce and spread. It is very questionable whether you should blame the virus for disease at all or something or someone else that made your body susceptible to disease - the intention of the virus is, generally, not to kill.
Vaccination is just another way of powering the cancer of this planet and if I don't want to take part in it, you may label, imprison me, blame me for your sickness, or try forcing me in any other way you want, but I won't change my mind.
I am Earth. It is my right to remain silent, but you will still judge me, right? And blame - for all your catastrophes, disasters and other crimes against humanity.
Chapter Once upon a time, every time, there was a virus... and then there was you updated. Chapter Once upon a time, every time, there was a virus... and then there was you updated. Added chapter Once upon a time, every time, there was a virus... and then there was you. Small updates elsewhere. Once upon a time, every time, there was a virus... and then there was you With the discovery of giant viruses who share a lot of DNA with [other] animals, it became clear - without viruses there is no evolution. A virus is a DNA [or DNA mutation] carrier particle. Natural selection has a part in evolution, but without mutation there is no evolution. And these DNA changes are not random, they are as scripted as your embryonic development (evolution) was. We are all ancestors of viruses. This is evident in merging of gametes. Male spermatozoa is a virus and so is a female egg. Embryonic development is past evolution [lossy] compressed and thus accelerated. This lossy compression of DNA occurs on big scale too - when evolution accelerates, one can expect missing links in fossils.
Note that fossils could be interpreted as large scale DNA imprints.
Obviously we are ancestors of two different species of viruses. The male ancestor infected our female ancestor and new species was born. As these species evolved (through infection by other viruses!), males and females got more and more complex - and so did the [DNA in] viruses they carry in order to reproduce.
Humans [and most other lifeforms] can certainly be interpreted as large scale viruses. When male [virus] connects to a receptor of a female [virus] it injects its DNA in order to replicate. The carrier particle of this DNA is the small scale virus (spermatozoa). Generally, the environment is not suitable for this virus and it will not survive but, for a couple of days every month (which was probably correlated with the Earth's moon at one point in history), the virus is allowed to reach the female egg cell (another virus) - this can be interpreted as a change of season inside the female organism. Inside the cell, the male virus can replicate but in order to survive it also has to mutate (coupling with female DNA). The whole body around the spermatozoa in males and eggs in females can be interpreted as the environment adapted for cultivation of these viruses. The increasing number and complexity of proteins forming that environment is obviously complicating the path to, and reducing the chances for, reproduction. In one interpretation, all the complexity in complex life forms is there simply to limit reproduction - as, with increasing diversity of senses and interactions with universe[s], the organism is unlikely to be focused on reproduction all the time. Thus, it is obvious that viruses will sometimes be treated like unwanted [carriers of] disease, but sometimes they will be treated as carriers of DNA and allowed to mutate and create new lifeforms.
A virus is a vital component of an ecosystem, especially silent viruses that do not induce a lot of bad symptoms.
Badness is very relative. For me, and for everyone who is not anthropocentric, death at old age is not bad at all, it is good.
So if you care about your evolution you should care about viruses - if you destroy them you are reducing yourself to a non-evolving resource.
When a male human dies, its soul changes spin (sex) and couples with a female egg. When female human dies, its soul changes spin (sex) and couples with a male egg (spermatozoa). When egg DNA couples with male DNA, soul of the female egg will change spin again and inflate to male soul again. Inflation of the soul is followed with embryonic inflation (development) of a body. However, this soul will not be inflating alone - when spermatozoa dies, its soul does not only trigger inflation, it couples with the other soul as a female soul. The sex of the body is determined by a gene carried by spermatozoa. If body is male it will generally couple with a male soul, so this will accelerate the inflation (evolution) of that soul, while the other soul (female) will be subdued - the body is coupled to a superposition of two souls until differences between male and female bodies become pronounced, when male soul is [naturally] selected to be dominantly evolved. The opposite is true for female bodies. Some DNA mutations (again induced and carried by viruses) can cause male bodies to couple with female souls and vice versa, a characteristic of homosexuality. Note that any of these souls (male and female) can be a composition of two souls, one of which may be dominant and other subdued with changes in energy levels.
Since all complex life on Earth shares a lot of genes, obviously all current living organisms on Earth are chimeras - a result of lateral gene transfer (exchange) between species, mediated by DNA carrier particles or life forms (viruses). Such mechanism enables evolution to be accelerated (by multiple orders of magnitude) with the rise and exposure to pandemics. One extreme example of this is platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), which was likely assembled during one such strong evolution event. Consider the symptoms of COVID-19 - one of them is subdued sense of smell. I have hypothesized elsewhere that descendant of homo.beta will have a smaller nose and a subdued sense of smell. Putting two and two together, our immune systems must have more depth than conventionally thought. If, as hypothesized, horizontal gene transfer is the dominant gene transfer method during strong evolution, the immune system must be adapted to this - explaining the lack of response to viruses like SARS-CoV-2. Effectively, thus, at least at times of strong evolution, there will be probability and possibly even sorting in the mechanics of the immune system. Healthy scepticism vs religious absolutism Scepticism is good, but not when it decays into religion of prejudice. To be sceptical about established dogmas of modern science is good, it is also good to be sceptical about everything outside it, but it is not good to label someone absolutely immoral or irrational when these beliefs are challenged, or when some beliefs are accepted even when there is a lack of evidence to support them. All your knowledge is relative. That necessarily implies that all your knowledge are beliefs which are true with more or less certainty, depending on space and time domains.
Even 5-sigma signals that are considered discoveries by modern science could disappear over night. Sure, due to a period of weak evolution that leads to religion of uniformitarianism, no expiration date is assigned to any discovery and when these discoveries are communicated to general population they are often advertised as absolutely true, and validity in time domain is not even discussed. This is generally due to short-term interests, even if unconscious. Any believer and practitioner of uniformitarianism, especially if operating on anthropocentric principles, is very prone to overestimation of short-term, and underestimation of long-term, benefits. But do we not know that knowledge has changed many times in history? How many times have we written our beliefs in stone, only to be crushed by a pulse of a genius? We only use bigger and bigger stones and carve more and more beliefs into them, making these stones ever so prettier so they can be more easily sold as laws. What makes one think that the peak has been reached and things cannot significantly change? Doesn't that sound familiar?
At this point of my evolution, I generally know what I am saying, rather than believe in what I preach. But it is unlikely that all my hypotheses are true, even if most are. If I would not be a researcher myself and if my beliefs would depend on a preacher to follow, I would still not haste putting my self in the last place of reason. An honest look deep down at one's self should provide guidance to reason, if not reason itself. Time will tell the truth as it has many times before. It is stupid to cling on to something time has proven wrong, but it is also sad, when, in such a large and diverse society, time becomes the only thing one can believe in. Article revised. Article revised.

References


Inverse references (signals)

Dream on (1973), S. Tyler Lie lie lie (2007), S. Tankian Hook in mouth (1988), D. Mustaine et al Road to hell (1989), C. Rea Nothing's gonna be alright (2012), P. Spilles et al Poison was the cure (1990), D. Mustaine Captive Honour (1992), D. Mustaine et al