Minutus

Irene
Although the indiviual person you know may have taken that stance it is not a belief of Jehovah's witnesses
- They believe in sourcing the best medical treatment, of their choice, for their families as long as it does not conflict with thie decision to avoid blood transfusion
go to watchtower.org for correct information if you choose.
Beverly

Hi Sheri,
I don't think it's so important whether we say they are "alive" or not,
to the current discussion, but--what *is* the current working
definition of "alive"? When I was last reading about that, several
decades back, viruses were considered "in between", neither quite fully
matching the definition, nor fully not-matching it.

But--for the present purpose of discussion as to whether viruses do or
don't cause any disease, why does it matter whether we say they are
alive or not?
Imperfect analogy!

There are some viruses which will infect and cause illness or even
death in an animal (person or whatever) which had previously been
*healthy*. There's a continuum of virulence, which pretty much mirrors
the continuum of physiological familiarity. So the excessively
virulent (deadly) organisms are the ones to which a population does not
have prior exposure.
Although that is not the case with *every* virus, it certainly is the
case for nearly all that we are likely to come in contact with. And
that very important observation is the reason that *usually* the
"terrain" (the health of the patient) is of greater importance than the
pathogen. Because the vast majority of pathogens (viral, bacterial,
parasitic, chemical) we do have defense against, and if our defense /
homeostatic system (aka immune system, vital force, whatever) is
healthy, we will not become sick (or at least not much).

But if it's a pathogen against which we do *not* have defense, then the
story changes. If the body *has* no defenses that are effective
against it, then strengthening of relevant defenses can't be done.
Perhaps the "less alive" thing about viruses part of the reason why
development and use of antivirals has been so much less successful than
that of antibiotics? They don't eat, and they hijack the cells to
reproduce, so how do you kill them without killing the cells... ?

Why does it matter?
Shannon

Googling for a definition, found this fun offering from Cecil Adams'
column, "The Straight Dope."
Why don't we consider fire alive? What is life?
December 12, 1997

Dear Cecil:

OK, I know the answer to this, I just want to hear some reasons. Why
isn't fire alive? It breathes oxygen. It eats wood. It reproduces (sort
of). What defines life? How do we know it's not an advanced
non-carbon-based life-form? On that same note, why isn't a rock alive?
If a rock grew at a nanometer every million years, how could we
possibly study something like that?

— Gwidion15, via AOL

Cecil replies:

A lot of people reading this are thinking, that's what you get for
riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Not me. Truth be told, though
everybody thinks he knows it when he sees it, there is no widely agreed
upon definition of life. In fact fire is sometimes used as an example
of something that obviously isn't alive but nonetheless exhibits many
functional characteristics of living things, e.g., metabolism, growth,
reproduction, and so on. But if the functional definition (it's alive
if it acts like it's alive) won't cut it, what will? Here are a few
other definitions: It's the name of a magazine. I'm allowed one inane
joke per column. This is it. Living things contain reproducible
hereditary information. This is the genetic definition. I avoided
mentioning DNA, nucleic acids, chromosomes, and such so as not to limit
this to life as we know it on earth. Yet this definition is still open
to criticism. Some people argue that a machine could contain
reproducible hereditary information but we wouldn't consider it alive.
Most scientists would counter: why not? If we accept the possibility of
artificial intelligence, why not artificial life? A more serious
objection is that by this definition a virus is alive. A lot of
biologists don't buy that. A virus is basically a chunk of DNA or RNA
(or computer code, for that matter) that succeeds in reproducing
itself. But it's not a cell, which many consider the fundamental unit
of life, and it doesn't do the things cells do, such as metabolize,
react to the environment, etc. Life is an illusion. Now I'm really
starting to feel that six-pack. Let's set aside the question of
sentient life to avoid arguments about the soul. It seems obvious that
at some level all we see about us, living or otherwise, is merely a
manifestation of chemical reactions and the laws of physics. Chemists
implicitly accept this mechanistic idea, defining "organic chemistry"
(whose nominal subject is the chemical reactions underlying life) as
anything having to do with carbon. In short, life is an arbitrary
distinction. Life reverses local entropy. Popularized by Isaac Asimov.
In lay terms, life reverses the default trend toward ever-greater
disorganization. Yeah, I know: Asimov must never have had children.
Still, this one's got a certain appeal. In contrast to, say, fire,
which in its uncontrolled form is one of your more basic entropic
phenomena, life is a creative force. Admittedly that idea isn't much
help in deciding what's alive and what ain't. The chemical reactions
occurring for the universe's first few billion years led inexorably to
our teeming world, yet no one would describe them as life. But so what?
The claim is that there is a powerful antientropic force in the
universe (at a certain level of organization, it's called natural
selection), of which we are the latest and coolest manifestation. I'm
not saying it's as cuddly a thought as a benevolent Creator. But it
beats waiting for things to just sputter out.

One more thing. When this question came up on the Straight Dope message
board the other day, one confused philosopher attempted to settle the
issue by saying, "Cogito ergo sum [I think, therefore I am]; fire no
cogito." Another wit replied, "If [cogito]'s the litmus test, we're
going to lose most of California."

— Cecil Adams

How long? I don't know, but am missing the point of your question...
I gather that at different points in the process, there will be
different organisms which could infect another person, tho I assume the
time period would depend on many factors, and if you mean specifically
the virus that *killed* the person / animal, I assume that would depend
on the virus... Sorry, not sure what you're after, but guess I don't
know the answer in any case!
Shannon

To me, alive means having a method of reproduction to produce more
of that species - on this planet that usually is done with a gene code.
Thankfully, that excludes roundup, radiation, pet rocks or meteor
rocks,......
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

>

Not long for the reason that a virus is essentially a parasite and it
needs cells to live in, and dead peple do not have them.
Exactly how long varies from virus to virus.

But if the person dies of a bacterial disease - many bacteria can
encapsulate with internal bacterial spores - and people unearthing
mummies have gotten infections from those bacteria.
So the mummified person is dead, but the bacterial endospores on/in
them can still be viable.
...Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Sheri
Plenty to debate all right, as no-one seems to have all the answers to what a virus is.
I'm not sure that we can base our arguments on anything for certain - it seems like shifting sand!
For example, you found something about living organisms, and wrote:
"Here we come across the first flaw. It says: ...capable of independent functioning... which is not the case with a virus. He has to use a host-cell in order to do things like a normal cell."
Well, parasites (e.g. mistletoe, worms etc.) need a host - without it, they die. In other words, mistletoe, for example, is incapable of living in soil like other plants. Yet it is very much alive - just using a different mechanism to grow, develop and multiply. If it can find a host, it can function independently.
Just a thought!
Liz

This does not sound right to me, Viroloogy - the study of virus LILFE
FORMS - has been asround a long time. We categorixze them into genus
and species like any other life form according to their common
characteristic for each category.

Some for example are adapted to attack only one species or even
subspecies, while others can "cross the species barrier" muh more
easily.

They ALL can reproduce more of their species, and they all contain
DNA or RNA, inside a protein envelope and have a way to inject
themselves into a host cell, and a way to multiply their numbers in
there.

So I'd hardly say we don't know what a virus is.
Isn't it?
ONLY the virus decides to infect a cell, and ONLY the virus can
replicate itself. ONLY the virus can develop toxins to damage the
host further.
How is that not independent functioning?

Where energy comes from is always external.
A cat flea that falls off a cat is dead in 24 hrs.
Even humans are not independent of that:-) .... We prey on other
species too, to obtain energy to reproduce and do whatever we do

Prion, Virus, Bacteria, Parasite-worm, Tree, Cat, Person, plant -
ALL the Same principle.
They live (=DO something) and they reproduce using gene material.
THAT makes them alive - but they ALL get energy from external
sources (each other, the sun, geothermal sulphur, oxygen, etc).
So - To act in some way that can affect others AND to be able to
reproduce, is to be alive.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Thank you, Beverly, for correcting the information about Jehovah's witnesses. To further amplify your response and as a matter of clarification, health care is seen as an individual choice and Jehovah's witnesses have published information over the years describing non allopathic choices so that more knowledge and understanding can exist among its members and to build respect for those who choose non allopathic methods as well as building respect for those who do choose allopathic methods as these choices.. The information also alerts people of other possible options. Individual choices, should not be a cause for dividing humanity, but rather emphasizing that love for God and neighbor is the main quality for those who claim to serve God.
In fact in the many decades I have been one of Jehovah's witnesses I have never seen or heard of anyone (which doesn't mean it never happens, but that it is rare) espousing the view described.
Mary Ann Gilmore

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, eternalhealth@optusnet.com.au wrote:

By the way, I forgot to mention in my last response that this open mindedness of being one of Jehovah's witnesses was an impelling support for me when I chose to enroll as a student at BIH two years ago..

Mary Ann Gilmore

--- On Tue, 6/2/09, eternalhealth@optusnet.com.au wrote: