12 ms·

Trillions of Viruses Fall from the Sky Each Day

183 points by aaronbrethorst 9y ago

cowboysauce 9y ago
>One study estimated that viruses in the ocean cause a trillion trillion infections every second, destroying some 20 percent of all bacterial cells in the sea daily. That excerpt really put it into perspective for me. I guess I always thought that viruses didn't have much of an impact, aside from ocasionally causing a pandemic and incorporating themselves into our genome. But the thought of viruses killing a fifth of all bacteria in the sea everyday is staggering.
- perl4ever 9y ago
  Given the number of recent articles about how gut bacteria may regulate body and mind, it makes me wonder how viruses may regulate those bacteria.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Bacteria are the "grey goo" catastrophe. Viruses are the cure.
    - virtu0so 9y ago
      Meh, what is it about viruses that makes the NOT grey goo? Or what if prions are grey goo? I think grey goo's is pretty much anything small enough to be gooey.
      - Robotbeat 9y ago
        Because grey goo is supposed to consume non-biological matter. Viruses and prions require biological substrates, and when those are used up they stop.
        pureGarbage 9y ago
        So, first of all, it's vague jargon to describe a hypothetical concept that does not exist and may not ever exist. Second, the defining characteristic of "grey goo" is that it's of an artificial or synthetic origin, and hence, the "grey" part of the concept intimates technology, but not much else. The only other characteristic is that "grey goo" is typically depicted as a swarm of microscopic contraptions stuck on a runaway chain reaction, although the consumables that sustain the reaction can be anything at all. So, there's no real limit to the inputs or outputs of this hypothetical monstrosity, except that it's an all-consuming blob or nebulous swarm. Third, you contradict yourself, since you ascribe microbes as grey goo, but then you tack on "non biological" sustenance as an afterthought. The microbial life at hand are not necessarily autotrophs or even consumers on non biological material, they are all heterotrophs made of biological material, eating each other. Furthermore the microbes are not "grey goo" because they are of natural origin and process. In conclusion, grey goo is a thought experiment about a man made disaster or industrial accident, involving microscopic systems gone haywire. No other requirements are really specific to the idea.
        Robotbeat 9y ago
        Of course, I’m familiar with the term and its origins. Obviously bacteria were not created by humans, but they were a runaway reaction that ended up covering the entire planet and even deep below the surface. The early microbes were things like hydrogenotrophs (etc) that could feed on non-biological matter, although limited compared to the hypothetical technological version. I was just pointing out the oft-observed notion that the development life itself (especially simple life like bacteria) was a kind of grey go moment, but is being held in check by viruses.
        ta76567656 9y ago
        Seems like gp was being figurative, and saying that something like the mythical "goo that consumes everything" actually exists already.
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        Because they are unable to multiply on their own. A weird bacteria or nanomachine might convert everything to other weird bacteria or nanomachines. A weird virus can only convert all cells to weird viruses, since it needs cells to multiply. A weird prion can only convert other prions to their form, which is even more limited. Both of the latter scenarios can be very dangerous, up to an extinction event, but they're different from gray goo.
      - otempomores 9y ago
        Viruses are helpless without bacteria.. They need them to replicate and continue existance.. Viri are the apex predator.
    - Terr_ 9y ago
      The Grey Goo catastrophe happened a few billion years ago -- everything around today is an inheritor of that legacy one way or another. Including multicellular organisms.
  - cup-of-tea 9y ago
    Most people are infected by a few viruses for their whole life and the bacteria inside us are infected by many. We don't know what any of them do or whether they are good for us.
- tasty_freeze 9y ago
  "Viruses, A Very Short Introduction" by Dorothy H Crawford, says this on page 21: "There are around 10e6 different viral species in a kilogram of marine sediment where they infect and kill co-resident bacteria. Overall, marine viruses kill an estimated 20-40% of all marine bacteria every day."
  - kreetx 9y ago
    Since the info presented in the article is totally new to me, would you say this book is a good intro to a non-scientist on this entire topic?
    - imdsm 9y ago
      I haven't read it, but I have read some of the Very Short Introduction books, and they're pretty good for a layman. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199574855 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Int... Update: looks like there is a new version published last month, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0198811713 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Int...
  - sitkack 9y ago
    I had no idea that bacteria had it so hard. I thought they mostly had "easy liv'n".
- ams6110 9y ago
  One would assume the reproduction rate of the bacteria is sufficient to make this sustainable.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Given that bacteria and viruses existed for billions of years...
  - fipple 9y ago
    Yes, in the lab, bacteria can double in less than an hour.
    - janekm 9y ago
      Also in the kitchen.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Yes, kitchen is a half-assed organic chemistry lab for doing what's basically alchemy.
  - ars 9y ago
    Easily. The bacterial population can double in just half an hour. The only thing limiting them is nutrients. And they probably get a lot of those nutrients from bacteria that died, so it self balances.
- enitihas 9y ago
  That sounds like exponential reduction in the number of bacteria. How do any bacteria survive with this rate, unless I am missing something.
  - laser 9y ago
    Bacteria grow at an exponential rate :) What at an incredible equilibrium. In optimal conditions E. coli can double every twenty minutes! These organisms live on a completely different time scale.
    - enitihas 9y ago
      Indeed, a very special equilibrium then.
  - narag 9y ago
    Reproducing at a higher rate?
  - pas 9y ago
    The lucky ones exponentially conquer the freed up space, then some lucky virus gets to them, rinse, repeat.
justinator 9y ago
I guess the layman's followup question (if I may) is, why didn't something like Smallpox spread over to the Americas, if viruses are that prevalent? Why did they need a human host? Is there a specific evolutionary niche to not being infectious via the air?
- ridgeguy 9y ago
  It might be that airborne transport imposes barriers that smallpox didn't evolve to meet. Perhaps something like resistance to degradation by UV in sunlight. If so, maybe the apparently large cohort of viruses that do survive airborne dispersal is only a small fraction of the actual virus inventory on our planet.
- amelius 9y ago
  IANAB, but perhaps the concentration is too low to cause any harm?
- knappa 9y ago
  I would think that the virii that have that kind of prevalence are mostly bacteriophages.
  - keithwhor 9y ago
    This is the correct answer. Viruses are also very specialized molecular machinery, and eukaryotic cells (and by extension, organisms) are quite complex. Think of molecular evolution between viruses v. prokaryotes / eukaryotes like a constant arms race: viruses have the "key" to (1) enter a cell and (2) hijack cellular machinery, and prokaryotes / eukaryotes are constantly upgrading their locks (mostly as a factor of diversity x natural selection --- the cells without great locks tend to be terminated rather quickly). Also consider that it's not in a virus' "best interest" (from a sustainability / propagative standpoint) to actually kill or even incapacitate 100% of their hosts, which contradicts their very mode of replication (often completely hijacking transcription and translation mechanisms in a cell, leading to lysis). They rely on these hosts to survive --- a 100% termination rate of the host means an evolutionary dead-end for a virus. Arguably, the most "successful" viruses are ones that have been incorporated into host DNA - it's estimated that up to 8% of our genome consists of endogenous retrovirus DNA [1]. After all, viruses are simply small containers of self-replicative material (DNA / RNA, a few proteins) surrounded by a protein coat: if they can hijack their own environmental shield (like, say, a full human nucleus / cell) and still propagate their DNA they've arguably "won." So --- yeah, harmful virulence is (1) tough to achieve and (2) not actually all that evolutionarily advantageous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
RobertRoberts 9y ago
Why does this feel a little like fear-mongering? George Carlin on germs, really funny stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s
- andai 9y ago
  Really? I thought it was more like awesome-mongering.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    What is awesome about viruses raining down from they sky?
    - aquadrop 9y ago
      The fact that it's happening and we're still alive.
      - amelius 9y ago
        This may change when the viruses are made to deliver engineered payloads.
        RobertRoberts 9y ago
        What happens if there's a bug in the gene code/splicing, and a self-replicating virus causes a worse problem that it was intended to solve? (this happens all the time in pharmaceuticals already) Or because a virus was manipulated, it can then mutates in a way that in it's natural state, would never mutate? (another unforeseeable result)
        ncmncm 9y ago
        Viruses always mutate, and they are far more clever about it than any puny human. But fewer than one in a billion viral species has the slightest interest in infecting you.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
The possibility that viruses can benefit a host or cellular species is interesting. I have wondered whether the common cold virus(es) may impart some benefit to humans? Are we symbiotic with mutualism? Could they provide some defense or warning against other diseases in the environment? Just speculating.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Interesting idea; it strikes me there's a kinda mutualism. If outsiders are often hostile, as interlopers won't have immunities the local group have, the incomers will potentially suffer a degree of debilitation - that is perhaps sufficient to give the local group the edge in battle, or to cement friendship through nurturing the non-fatally sick.
  - kortex 9y ago
    I have a theory, more of a headcannon really, that coughing and sneezing actually evolved (in part) to deliberately spread infectious agents, as opposed to less-atomizing means of clearing mucus. Airborn viruses are typically non-lethal (otherwise it would wipe out the species readily), and it would have the effect of spreading these and creating survival pressure which culls the weak, freeing up resources and enhancing selection. The anti-outsider effects would also be a perk.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      I like it, thanks for sharing.
- ItsMe000001 9y ago
  Anecdote time. I'm not going to write a lengthy comment (that nobody reads anyway), suffice it to say I suffered from (clinically tested) chronic heavy metal poisoning and got chelation therapy (chelators DMPS and DMSA) with success far exceeding what the doctors expected (pretty much all problems I had that were attributed - including by myself - to age, computer/desk work, "that's life" - went away. Towards the point when it all got too much, forcing me to acknowledge something was wrong (after suffering a tiny bit more and more over decades), I had ended up in a situation that when I got a cold (in winter) it just would not stop until May. Up to this point one might just suspect that well, the immune system suffers so of course you get more sick. However, during the years of therapy I found that each time I still got a cold A LOT of "stuff" was happening and the symptoms that I associated with the removal of the heavy metals would increase significantly during that time. Also, I found that when it got really bad when I injected DMPS I got much better! Which (sane) doctor would recommend injecting a chelator when you got a cold or stomach flu??? (Disclaimer: Of course, the chelator only worked because of the underlying condition, obviously I'm not saying that it is an antidote against flu symptoms.) Note that in my case the area of the upper jaw and around the nose was heavily impacted, unseen even in panorama x-ray the bone matrix up there was in such a bad state that when a doctor wanted to inject something into the buccal mucosa the needle went straight into the jaw bone in several places. He injected chelator and a lot of stuff started happening (positive, self-repair), a year later the needle could not penetrate the bone anywhere. Each time I got a cold the entire upper jaw bone area hurt, that's why I suspected a connection and at some point, when it got pretty bad (overall symptoms) tried the chelator during a stomach flu, with immediate success. I (now) have a basic background (I'd say two years university study equivalent) in biology, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, org. chemistry, bio chemistry, statistics (medical studies and biology focus), neuroscience. While that does not help me to say anything with any level of authority at all, especially since I'm my only subject of "research", it sets a lower threshold for the kinds of stuff I'm willing/able to believe I'd say. I see no contradiction to what I learned in these "esoteric" theories. Still, my conclusion based on (kind of extreme) personal experience is that infections play a role that goes far beyond "I'm sick". I stopped taking cold medicine as far as I could bear it because I felt (without prove, purely subjective) that this removed harmful stuff (other than the bacteria/viruses). I would not be surprised to see negative long-term effects after we really "cure" the common cold and nobody gets sick any more. "Can't we just core the cold for good?" -- in the past I would have agreed wholeheartedly, but now I say let's be very cautious about seemingly "simple" interventions. There is much much more going on that we have not even started to grasp.
sbhn 9y ago
Someone should quickly tell the king that the sky is falling down
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Having just read this article, how might this virus activity be tracked / measured back in time? If viruses and bacteria are the forerunners of more complex life, wouldn't this be helpful to know? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-earths-only-civilization/557180/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-e...
curlcntr 9y ago
I saw this quote in Nature last year [1] "Viruses outnumber prokaryotes by ten to one and are said to kill half of the world's bacteria every two days" Maybe these two are locked in some sort of existential battle for Earth while everything else is a side show? [1] H. Ledford, "Five big mysteries about CRISPR’s origins", Nature, 12 January 2017. Volume 541 Number 7637
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Viruses are fundamentally smaller than bacteria, so they’re not really competitors in the zero-sum sense. Saying they are in an existential battle is like saying birds and insects are in an existential battle. They might kill each other and occupy the same physical space, but one can’t really replace the other in the fitness landscape.
mikeash 9y ago
This is a rare example of extreme understatement in a headline. If the figure given in the article is true, about 800 trillion viruses fall to Earth each day per square kilometer.
- andai 9y ago
  Hundreds of Sextillions of Viruses Fall from the Sky Each Day
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, huh? I think they probably made the right decision to understate it here.
- ItsMe000001 9y ago
  Per square meter, according to the article, not kilometer.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The article states 800 million per square meter per day. I converted it to square kilometers to get something with "trillion."
imcoconut 9y ago
> (There is a small group of researchers who believe viruses may even have come here from outer space, an idea known as panspermia.) Fred Hoyle [1] is one such researcher. He is an astrophysicist who was the first to demonstrate how elements heavier than helium are synthesized by nuclear reactions in stellar cores. He holds a number of non-mainstream scientific beliefs and one involves the source and evolution of life on earth. He discusses it, along with other evidence challenging the neo-darwinian theory of evolution [2], in "The Intelligent Universe" [3]. I'm reading it now and highly recommend it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0030700833 https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Fred-Hoyle/dp/00...

>One study estimated that viruses in the ocean cause a trillion trillion infections every second, destroying some 20 percent of all bacterial cells in the sea daily. That excerpt really put it into perspective for me. I guess I always thought that viruses didn't have much of an impact, aside from ocasionally causing a pandemic and incorporating themselves into our genome. But the thought of viruses killing a fifth of all bacteria in the sea everyday is staggering.

perl4ever 9y ago
Given the number of recent articles about how gut bacteria may regulate body and mind, it makes me wonder how viruses may regulate those bacteria.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Bacteria are the "grey goo" catastrophe. Viruses are the cure.
  - virtu0so 9y ago
    Meh, what is it about viruses that makes the NOT grey goo? Or what if prions are grey goo? I think grey goo's is pretty much anything small enough to be gooey.
    - Robotbeat 9y ago
      Because grey goo is supposed to consume non-biological matter. Viruses and prions require biological substrates, and when those are used up they stop.
      - pureGarbage 9y ago
        So, first of all, it's vague jargon to describe a hypothetical concept that does not exist and may not ever exist. Second, the defining characteristic of "grey goo" is that it's of an artificial or synthetic origin, and hence, the "grey" part of the concept intimates technology, but not much else. The only other characteristic is that "grey goo" is typically depicted as a swarm of microscopic contraptions stuck on a runaway chain reaction, although the consumables that sustain the reaction can be anything at all. So, there's no real limit to the inputs or outputs of this hypothetical monstrosity, except that it's an all-consuming blob or nebulous swarm. Third, you contradict yourself, since you ascribe microbes as grey goo, but then you tack on "non biological" sustenance as an afterthought. The microbial life at hand are not necessarily autotrophs or even consumers on non biological material, they are all heterotrophs made of biological material, eating each other. Furthermore the microbes are not "grey goo" because they are of natural origin and process. In conclusion, grey goo is a thought experiment about a man made disaster or industrial accident, involving microscopic systems gone haywire. No other requirements are really specific to the idea.
        Robotbeat 9y ago
        Of course, I’m familiar with the term and its origins. Obviously bacteria were not created by humans, but they were a runaway reaction that ended up covering the entire planet and even deep below the surface. The early microbes were things like hydrogenotrophs (etc) that could feed on non-biological matter, although limited compared to the hypothetical technological version. I was just pointing out the oft-observed notion that the development life itself (especially simple life like bacteria) was a kind of grey go moment, but is being held in check by viruses.
        ta76567656 9y ago
        Seems like gp was being figurative, and saying that something like the mythical "goo that consumes everything" actually exists already.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      Because they are unable to multiply on their own. A weird bacteria or nanomachine might convert everything to other weird bacteria or nanomachines. A weird virus can only convert all cells to weird viruses, since it needs cells to multiply. A weird prion can only convert other prions to their form, which is even more limited. Both of the latter scenarios can be very dangerous, up to an extinction event, but they're different from gray goo.
    - otempomores 9y ago
      Viruses are helpless without bacteria.. They need them to replicate and continue existance.. Viri are the apex predator.
  - Terr_ 9y ago
    The Grey Goo catastrophe happened a few billion years ago -- everything around today is an inheritor of that legacy one way or another. Including multicellular organisms.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  Most people are infected by a few viruses for their whole life and the bacteria inside us are infected by many. We don't know what any of them do or whether they are good for us.
tasty_freeze 9y ago
"Viruses, A Very Short Introduction" by Dorothy H Crawford, says this on page 21: "There are around 10e6 different viral species in a kilogram of marine sediment where they infect and kill co-resident bacteria. Overall, marine viruses kill an estimated 20-40% of all marine bacteria every day."
- kreetx 9y ago
  Since the info presented in the article is totally new to me, would you say this book is a good intro to a non-scientist on this entire topic?
  - imdsm 9y ago
    I haven't read it, but I have read some of the Very Short Introduction books, and they're pretty good for a layman. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199574855 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Int... Update: looks like there is a new version published last month, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0198811713 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viruses-Very-Short-Introduction-Int...
- sitkack 9y ago
  I had no idea that bacteria had it so hard. I thought they mostly had "easy liv'n".
ams6110 9y ago
One would assume the reproduction rate of the bacteria is sufficient to make this sustainable.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Given that bacteria and viruses existed for billions of years...
- fipple 9y ago
  Yes, in the lab, bacteria can double in less than an hour.
  - janekm 9y ago
    Also in the kitchen.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Yes, kitchen is a half-assed organic chemistry lab for doing what's basically alchemy.
- ars 9y ago
  Easily. The bacterial population can double in just half an hour. The only thing limiting them is nutrients. And they probably get a lot of those nutrients from bacteria that died, so it self balances.
enitihas 9y ago
That sounds like exponential reduction in the number of bacteria. How do any bacteria survive with this rate, unless I am missing something.
- laser 9y ago
  Bacteria grow at an exponential rate :) What at an incredible equilibrium. In optimal conditions E. coli can double every twenty minutes! These organisms live on a completely different time scale.
  - enitihas 9y ago
    Indeed, a very special equilibrium then.
- narag 9y ago
  Reproducing at a higher rate?
- pas 9y ago
  The lucky ones exponentially conquer the freed up space, then some lucky virus gets to them, rinse, repeat.

justinator 9y ago

I guess the layman's followup question (if I may) is, why didn't something like Smallpox spread over to the Americas, if viruses are that prevalent? Why did they need a human host? Is there a specific evolutionary niche to not being infectious via the air?

ridgeguy 9y ago
It might be that airborne transport imposes barriers that smallpox didn't evolve to meet. Perhaps something like resistance to degradation by UV in sunlight. If so, maybe the apparently large cohort of viruses that do survive airborne dispersal is only a small fraction of the actual virus inventory on our planet.
amelius 9y ago
IANAB, but perhaps the concentration is too low to cause any harm?
knappa 9y ago
I would think that the virii that have that kind of prevalence are mostly bacteriophages.
- keithwhor 9y ago
  This is the correct answer. Viruses are also very specialized molecular machinery, and eukaryotic cells (and by extension, organisms) are quite complex. Think of molecular evolution between viruses v. prokaryotes / eukaryotes like a constant arms race: viruses have the "key" to (1) enter a cell and (2) hijack cellular machinery, and prokaryotes / eukaryotes are constantly upgrading their locks (mostly as a factor of diversity x natural selection --- the cells without great locks tend to be terminated rather quickly). Also consider that it's not in a virus' "best interest" (from a sustainability / propagative standpoint) to actually kill or even incapacitate 100% of their hosts, which contradicts their very mode of replication (often completely hijacking transcription and translation mechanisms in a cell, leading to lysis). They rely on these hosts to survive --- a 100% termination rate of the host means an evolutionary dead-end for a virus. Arguably, the most "successful" viruses are ones that have been incorporated into host DNA - it's estimated that up to 8% of our genome consists of endogenous retrovirus DNA [1]. After all, viruses are simply small containers of self-replicative material (DNA / RNA, a few proteins) surrounded by a protein coat: if they can hijack their own environmental shield (like, say, a full human nucleus / cell) and still propagate their DNA they've arguably "won." So --- yeah, harmful virulence is (1) tough to achieve and (2) not actually all that evolutionarily advantageous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

RobertRoberts 9y ago

Why does this feel a little like fear-mongering? George Carlin on germs, really funny stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s

andai 9y ago
Really? I thought it was more like awesome-mongering.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  What is awesome about viruses raining down from they sky?
  - aquadrop 9y ago
    The fact that it's happening and we're still alive.
    - amelius 9y ago
      This may change when the viruses are made to deliver engineered payloads.
      - RobertRoberts 9y ago
        What happens if there's a bug in the gene code/splicing, and a self-replicating virus causes a worse problem that it was intended to solve? (this happens all the time in pharmaceuticals already) Or because a virus was manipulated, it can then mutates in a way that in it's natural state, would never mutate? (another unforeseeable result)
        ncmncm 9y ago
        Viruses always mutate, and they are far more clever about it than any puny human. But fewer than one in a billion viral species has the slightest interest in infecting you.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

The possibility that viruses can benefit a host or cellular species is interesting. I have wondered whether the common cold virus(es) may impart some benefit to humans? Are we symbiotic with mutualism? Could they provide some defense or warning against other diseases in the environment? Just speculating.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Interesting idea; it strikes me there's a kinda mutualism. If outsiders are often hostile, as interlopers won't have immunities the local group have, the incomers will potentially suffer a degree of debilitation - that is perhaps sufficient to give the local group the edge in battle, or to cement friendship through nurturing the non-fatally sick.
- kortex 9y ago
  I have a theory, more of a headcannon really, that coughing and sneezing actually evolved (in part) to deliberately spread infectious agents, as opposed to less-atomizing means of clearing mucus. Airborn viruses are typically non-lethal (otherwise it would wipe out the species readily), and it would have the effect of spreading these and creating survival pressure which culls the weak, freeing up resources and enhancing selection. The anti-outsider effects would also be a perk.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I like it, thanks for sharing.
ItsMe000001 9y ago
Anecdote time. I'm not going to write a lengthy comment (that nobody reads anyway), suffice it to say I suffered from (clinically tested) chronic heavy metal poisoning and got chelation therapy (chelators DMPS and DMSA) with success far exceeding what the doctors expected (pretty much all problems I had that were attributed - including by myself - to age, computer/desk work, "that's life" - went away. Towards the point when it all got too much, forcing me to acknowledge something was wrong (after suffering a tiny bit more and more over decades), I had ended up in a situation that when I got a cold (in winter) it just would not stop until May. Up to this point one might just suspect that well, the immune system suffers so of course you get more sick. However, during the years of therapy I found that each time I still got a cold A LOT of "stuff" was happening and the symptoms that I associated with the removal of the heavy metals would increase significantly during that time. Also, I found that when it got really bad when I injected DMPS I got much better! Which (sane) doctor would recommend injecting a chelator when you got a cold or stomach flu??? (Disclaimer: Of course, the chelator only worked because of the underlying condition, obviously I'm not saying that it is an antidote against flu symptoms.) Note that in my case the area of the upper jaw and around the nose was heavily impacted, unseen even in panorama x-ray the bone matrix up there was in such a bad state that when a doctor wanted to inject something into the buccal mucosa the needle went straight into the jaw bone in several places. He injected chelator and a lot of stuff started happening (positive, self-repair), a year later the needle could not penetrate the bone anywhere. Each time I got a cold the entire upper jaw bone area hurt, that's why I suspected a connection and at some point, when it got pretty bad (overall symptoms) tried the chelator during a stomach flu, with immediate success. I (now) have a basic background (I'd say two years university study equivalent) in biology, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, org. chemistry, bio chemistry, statistics (medical studies and biology focus), neuroscience. While that does not help me to say anything with any level of authority at all, especially since I'm my only subject of "research", it sets a lower threshold for the kinds of stuff I'm willing/able to believe I'd say. I see no contradiction to what I learned in these "esoteric" theories. Still, my conclusion based on (kind of extreme) personal experience is that infections play a role that goes far beyond "I'm sick". I stopped taking cold medicine as far as I could bear it because I felt (without prove, purely subjective) that this removed harmful stuff (other than the bacteria/viruses). I would not be surprised to see negative long-term effects after we really "cure" the common cold and nobody gets sick any more. "Can't we just core the cold for good?" -- in the past I would have agreed wholeheartedly, but now I say let's be very cautious about seemingly "simple" interventions. There is much much more going on that we have not even started to grasp.

sbhn 9y ago

Someone should quickly tell the king that the sky is falling down

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Having just read this article, how might this virus activity be tracked / measured back in time? If viruses and bacteria are the forerunners of more complex life, wouldn't this be helpful to know? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-earths-only-civilization/557180/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-e...

curlcntr 9y ago

I saw this quote in Nature last year [1] "Viruses outnumber prokaryotes by ten to one and are said to kill half of the world's bacteria every two days" Maybe these two are locked in some sort of existential battle for Earth while everything else is a side show? [1] H. Ledford, "Five big mysteries about CRISPR’s origins", Nature, 12 January 2017. Volume 541 Number 7637

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Viruses are fundamentally smaller than bacteria, so they’re not really competitors in the zero-sum sense. Saying they are in an existential battle is like saying birds and insects are in an existential battle. They might kill each other and occupy the same physical space, but one can’t really replace the other in the fitness landscape.

mikeash 9y ago

This is a rare example of extreme understatement in a headline. If the figure given in the article is true, about 800 trillion viruses fall to Earth each day per square kilometer.

andai 9y ago
Hundreds of Sextillions of Viruses Fall from the Sky Each Day
- mikeash 9y ago
  Doesn't quite have the same ring to it, huh? I think they probably made the right decision to understate it here.
ItsMe000001 9y ago
Per square meter, according to the article, not kilometer.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The article states 800 million per square meter per day. I converted it to square kilometers to get something with "trillion."

imcoconut 9y ago

> (There is a small group of researchers who believe viruses may even have come here from outer space, an idea known as panspermia.) Fred Hoyle [1] is one such researcher. He is an astrophysicist who was the first to demonstrate how elements heavier than helium are synthesized by nuclear reactions in stellar cores. He holds a number of non-mainstream scientific beliefs and one involves the source and evolution of life on earth. He discusses it, along with other evidence challenging the neo-darwinian theory of evolution [2], in "The Intelligent Universe" [3]. I'm reading it now and highly recommend it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century... [3] https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Fred-Hoyle/dp/0030700833 https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Fred-Hoyle/dp/00...