Re: Vindication of Dr. Clark and Rife

 >- >- A virus is the ultimate obligatory parasite according to the definition.

>- No, it is not. You clearly have a lot to learn about BASIC science!!!

Actually, you need to get updated and out of your antiquated information.

No, you need to stop changing definitions to fit your needs.

>- any organism

Non-cellular life = Virus

Once again, viruses are not living!!! So they do not constitute "life"!!!  How many times does that simple concept need to be explained to you before you get it?!!!

And since you are also trying to redefine "organism" to fit your needs let's look at the definition of organism:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organism

or·gan·ism  (ôrg-nzm)

 

Notice that they make no references to "viruses" as viruses are not living and do not fall within the definition of organism regardless!!!

"The issue of life without cellular structure came again to the fore with the 2003 discovery that the large and complex Mimivirus " Ref: Luis P. Villarreal (2005). Viruses and the Evolution of Life. New York ASM Press.

Again, you need to learn how to do proper research:

http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/Mimivirus.html

"Mimivirus has many characteristics which put it at the boundary between living organisms and non-living entities. It is as large as several bacteria, such as Rickettsia conorii and Tropheryma whipplei, has a genome larger than a number of bacteria, and encodes some genetic products previously not known to be possessed by any virus. In particular, mimivirus contains genes coding for nucleotide and amino acid synthesis which even some small obligate intracellular bacteria lack. This means that unlike these bacteria, mimivirus is not dependent on the host cell genome for coding the metabolic pathways for these products. It does however, lack genes for ribosomal proteins, making mimivirus dependent on a host cell for protein synthesis and energy metabolism.

So, is mimivirus alive? Like all viruses, mimivirus particles do not reproduce by division, but are replicated by the self-assembly of preformed components. This differentiates it from cellular living organisms such as bacteria."

Oops, you blew it again!!!

"In discussing the taxonomic domains of life, the terms Acytota or Aphanobionta are occasionally used as the name of a viral kingdom, domain, or empire. The corresponding cellular life name would be Cytota. Non-cellular organisms and cellular life would be the only two subdivisions of earthly life—also known as terrestrial organisms,"

The paragraph directly above is also found in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cellular_life

And look at what else they state:

"Non-cellular life is life that exists without a cellular structure. This term presumes the phylogenetic scientific classification of viruses as lifeforms.^[1]"

You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper with each post.

From WikiPedia, I know, not the best reputed but:

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

Straddling does not mean "is".  Viruses are not considered living.  Try looking up the definition of living instead and then try to tell us how viruses fit the definition of living.

From The Bacteriophage T4 Virus

On the other end of the spectrum, a different criterion for defining life would be the ability to move a genetic blueprint into future generations, thereby regenerating your likeness. In the second, more simplistic definition, viruses are definitely alive. They are undeniably the most efficient entities on this planet at propagating their genetic information.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

LOL!!!  Do you even know what a bacteriophage is?!!!  Apparently you don't since if you did you would not have posted that realizing that it is not helping your case at all!  And no, viruses still do to fit the definition of life.

Even more funny is the fact that you apparently don't even bother to read the links you post as "evidence"!!!  From the link above you presented as evidence:

"Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. "

Keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper and deeper.........

Things have change since 1940 HV, get updated.

Yes, since 1940 we have learned what bacteriophages are.  Apparently you have not caught up to modern times yet.

>- Viruses lack metabolism, therefore they are not living."

This is false and is a narrow minded view point. Viruses are in a spore state but at the point where they come into contact with the correct receptor site, they do show self replicating action of attaching to the host, changing their shape, injecting not only their genetic material, but a minimum number of control proteins or m-RNA, commanding the host cell to do the virus bidding.

LOL!!!  That is not the definition of "living".  Once again you are trying to change definitions to fit your needs.

Per the FDA letter:

"Your product is therefore a device as that term is defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ("the Act")"

"in that it is a class III device under section 513(f), 21 USC 360c(f), "

Again, show us where this exists so it can be verified.  You could have pulled up that sentence from whatever website just like you make up definitions to meet your needs.  I want to see some real evidence that the FDA came to your place and this is what they stated in their report.  And as I said before these reports are public record.  Therefore, if you are telling the truth then you can go to the FDA's website and type your company name in to pull up any letters or reports issued to that company.  The fact that you are refusing to show us any real evidence of what the FDA found and stated makes your entire claim highly suspicious!!!

>- So keep making up lies Parazapper and I will keep exposing them!!!

No lies there,

And so far no proof of your claims.  Let's see the FDA reports, which should be listed on their website and thus you can provide a link IF they really exist.

Again, Magnesium sulphate exists as a natural substance and is produced as such.

I never claimed that magnesium sulfate was not found naturally.  So why are you trying to imply I did?  Are you always this misleading?

Just because something is produced and sold through other channels is only an alterative.

Again, commercial magnesium sulfate is not natural, it is synthesized.  Even by your claim that it is extracted from seawater the process by which this is done would still make it a synthetic.  Especially when trying to make it from calcium carbonate and hydroxide from seawater as you claimed.

Just because vitamin C is produced chemically, does not make it ineffective, just not as good as that coming from natural sources.

Wrong again.  Natural vitamin C contains bioflavonoids that the vitamin C needs to work properly.  In addition, synthetic vitamin C is extremely unstable.  We proved that fact back in high school chemistry.  On the other hand most plant sources of vitamin C contain other antioxidants within the plant that help protect the vitamin C from oxidation thus making it more stable.  Supposedly being a chemist I would have thought you would be aware of these basic and WELL KNOWN facts!!!

>- natural resonances involved,

Frequencies that are natural to the organism can be driven harded than normal by the ringing effect of the zapper. No matter how much poo pooh you generate, the zapper still works.

Of course you have no real evidence to back this claim.  Of course you also do not understand the difference between resonant frequency and radiofrequency, nor chemistry, nor how the body works, nor.........

>- A "range" can include healthy and dangerous frequencies!!!!

Great, give me a couple of dangerous frequencies above 15 Hz and below 35 kHz that cause significant dabger at the milliwatt level that a zapper provides.

42hz is considered a cancer causing frequency.  Gee, that was easy!!!

>- since cancers are rarely caused by parasites.

This is well documented as the tests for parasites are seriously flawed.

Irrelevant.  This does not prove that parasites are a major cause of cancer.  So better come up with something else to dig yourself out of the crater you made for yourself.

>- Again you are speculating since you have no evidence to the contrary.

It was the evidence to the contrary that raised you ire and sparked this debate which should be on a debate forum.

What evidence have you provided?  So far all you have done is discredit yourself by posting misinformation that has already been discredited.  Kind of like your making of magnesium sulfate from calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide claim.  Sorry, but that was seriously funny!!!

>- >- Your loss.

>- Not at all. I believe in things that actually work,

YOU CAN NOT know whether or not something works if you have not even bother to try.

Have you ever flown a rocket ship to the moon?  If not then you better write to NASA and tell them that going to the moon is impossible.  Hopefully that simple point does not fly over your head again.

This again, is nothing more than prejudicial, narrow minded, perpetuation of ignorance -->> lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. You have not tried or tested, therefore lack the necessary knowledge, experience, or awareness needed to make a true,
accurate, and fair judgment.

See above.

I do not have time to continue responding at this time but suggest that you take a deeper look in the mirror because the false misleading statements that you make can end up costing someone their life and you will have to be responsible for that.

I don't blame you for running away.  You have already completely shot your credibility by posing bogus claims then attempting to argue against the evidence proving you wrong.  

Then to play the "you are going to cost someone their life" card is just lower than low and a shear act of desperation.  Again, if the Zappers really worked in the first place then why did Hulda Clark die of cancer?

You should also look at the agree / disagree ratings on your posts. There are very few messages that you have posted that readers agree with.

ROTFLMAO!!!  Another great act of desperation.  Everyone here knows that the votes here mean nothing.  They are only political tools.  As I pointed out before over on the "Liver Flush Debate" forum the other "liver flush" supporters kept clicking "agree" on all your posts even though you were wrong just because you were supporting "liver flushing" and attacking me personally.  For example, on your post where you incorrectly claimed that magnesium sulfate was produced by the action of sulfuric acid on calcium carbonate or calcium hydroxide you had 3 "liver flush" supporters agree with you even though you were 100% wrong!!!  Since you obviously know nothing about chemistry, the action of sulfuric acid on calcium carbonate or calcium hydroxide results in the production of calcium sulfate, not magnesium sulfate.  And the same "liver flush" supporters also clicked agree on various other posts of yours that were also completely discredited.  So if you think that the agree and disagree votes really mean anything then you are much more gullible than I originally thought!!!

Tweet