Can You Catch A Cold? - Untold History & Human Experiments

By Daniel Roytas - 30 Q&As - Unbekoming Book Summary

Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history

= = = 

From the intro >

The question seems absurd at first.

Can you catch a cold? Everyone knows you can. Parents warn children to bundle up in winter. Office workers eye sniffling colleagues with suspicion. Entire industries exist to prevent, treat, and contain the spread of respiratory illness. The experience feels self-evident: someone sneezes near you, and a few days later you’re reaching for tissues yourself.

But what happens when you move past everyday observation and examine the actual scientific evidence—the controlled experiments, the documented attempts to transmit disease from sick people to healthy people under laboratory conditions? What emerges is not the airtight case for contagion that most people assume exists. Instead, you find a century of failed experiments, unexplained contradictions, and foundational studies whose control groups produced the same results as the experiments themselves.

The question stops seeming absurd and starts seeming urgent.

 

Germ theory—the idea that specific microorganisms cause specific diseases and spread between people—arrived in 1861 when Louis Pasteur released his theory to the world.

Contrary to popular belief, this was not a moment of scientific triumph welcomed by the medical establishment. Many of the most eminent physicians of the era opposed it fiercely, warning that the profession was abandoning centuries of clinical observation for an unproven hypothesis.

For most of human history, doctors had attributed epidemic illness to environmental conditions: atmospheric changes, toxins, malnutrition, poor sanitation. The “weather doctors” who documented relationships between meteorological events and disease outbreaks found contagion inadequate to explain why illness spread simultaneously across vast distances, moved consistently from east to west, and coincided with atmospheric phenomena rather than human travel patterns. These objections were not fringe positions held by backwards thinkers resistant to progress.

Rudolph Virchow, considered the father of modern pathology, stated he wished he could devote his life to proving that germs seek diseased tissue rather than causing it. The debate raged for decades, with anti-contagionists labelled “sanitarian heretics” even as they pointed to case after case where the germ explanation failed to match observed reality.

 

You can read the full article here > https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history

 

 

39 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Can You Catch A Cold? - Untold History & Human Experiments

By Daniel Roytas - 30 Q&As - Unbekoming Book Summary

Source: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history

= = = 

From the intro >

The question seems absurd at first.

Can you catch a cold? Everyone knows you can. Parents warn children to bundle up in winter. Office workers eye sniffling colleagues with suspicion. Entire industries exist to prevent, treat, and contain the spread of respiratory illness. The experience feels self-evident: someone sneezes near you, and a few days later you’re reaching for tissues yourself.

But what happens when you move past everyday observation and examine the actual scientific evidence—the controlled experiments, the documented attempts to transmit disease from sick people to healthy people under laboratory conditions? What emerges is not the airtight case for contagion that most people assume exists. Instead, you find a century of failed experiments, unexplained contradictions, and foundational studies whose control groups produced the same results as the experiments themselves.

The question stops seeming absurd and starts seeming urgent.

 

Germ theory—the idea that specific microorganisms cause specific diseases and spread between people—arrived in 1861 when Louis Pasteur released his theory to the world.

Contrary to popular belief, this was not a moment of scientific triumph welcomed by the medical establishment. Many of the most eminent physicians of the era opposed it fiercely, warning that the profession was abandoning centuries of clinical observation for an unproven hypothesis.

For most of human history, doctors had attributed epidemic illness to environmental conditions: atmospheric changes, toxins, malnutrition, poor sanitation. The “weather doctors” who documented relationships between meteorological events and disease outbreaks found contagion inadequate to explain why illness spread simultaneously across vast distances, moved consistently from east to west, and coincided with atmospheric phenomena rather than human travel patterns. These objections were not fringe positions held by backwards thinkers resistant to progress.

Rudolph Virchow, considered the father of modern pathology, stated he wished he could devote his life to proving that germs seek diseased tissue rather than causing it. The debate raged for decades, with anti-contagionists labelled “sanitarian heretics” even as they pointed to case after case where the germ explanation failed to match observed reality.

 

You can read the full article here > https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history

 

In his book - Can you Catch a Cold - Dr Roytas speaks of spending hours in libraries dusting down records from the results of the experiments. It's not easy to get at the actual gems, that mainstream medicine/medical science, has conveniently forgotten. Often he had to apply for permission to military authorities.

 

To explore why the experiments actually failed, is to question the fundamental concepts of health. And indeed humanity. If an illness cannot be transmitted, what then causes the illness in the first place?

 

My take; there is no illness. The 'illness' is actually the body attempting to cure itself in real time. Cure itself of what one might ask!  To answer that we should return to a common theme of mine. The natural state of the body is good health. It is not in nature's interest to make us sick. It needs itself to be fit as a fiddle to perform its basic function. What are they? To protect itself, to maintain good health, so that it is in the best shape to reproduce, and take care of the new-borns.

 

Originally; I came at the health issue from a completely different direction. My study, some 40+ years ago, was concerning body movement and energy production. Under the title of 'Exercise Physiology'; 'Sport Science' nowadays. Why and how we move. Why do we have different types of muscles? How can some people seemingly be able to run forever, while others can perform amazing strength feats; but can't run for toffee.

 

All this however, brings everything to the same place, as Dr Roytas' book; nature. Whatever nature does is for a good reason. So, we must return the fundamental concept; the body wants to reproduce. That is the fundamental truth of human life.

 

 

Personally i can't wait

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/clinical-trial-mrna-universal-influenza-vaccine-candidate-begins

4 minutes ago, Celsius said:

Personally i can't wait

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/clinical-trial-mrna-universal-influenza-vaccine-candidate-begins

A trial is on its way at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

 

"This Phase 1 trial will test the experimental vaccine, known as;"

 

Wait for it! ---- H1ssF-3928 mRNA-LNP

 

"for safety and its ability to induce an immune response."

 

",,,researchers hope to induce long-term immunity against a broad range of flu viruses."

 

Have these white-coats gone absolutely nuts? Influenza is not a disease. Not caused a virus. And cannot have a vaccine to cure, or prevent, something that don't exist.

 

What it is doing, IMO, is pushing this gene therapy mantra into the mind's eye. Trying to get this toxic filth accepted by the general populace. But under the banner of; 'life saving technology'.

 

Love nature. Maybe the only thing that can save us.

1 hour ago, Celsius said:

Personally i can't wait

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/clinical-trial-mrna-universal-influenza-vaccine-candidate-begins

 

Interesting link.

 

1) It explains WHY flu vaccines are not always effective:

 

Seasonal influenza, or flu, kills thousands of people in the United States each year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that between 2010 and 2020, between 12,000 and 52,000 people died of flu in the United States annually. Although annual seasonal flu vaccines are valuable tools in controlling the spread and severity of influenza, they do not provide immunity against every flu strain. Each year, before the flu season begins, scientific experts must predict which influenza strains are likely to be most common during the upcoming months and then select three or four of these strains to include in the next seasonal flu vaccine. Vaccine manufacturers then need time to produce and distribute the vaccine—during which the dominant strains of the virus can change in unexpected ways, potentially decreasing the efficacy of the vaccine. 

 

2) mRNA technology works completely differently. It (allegedly) works by inducing "a broad immune response against influenza". It appears to stimulate the immune system.

 

Will it really work? How safe will it be? .... we don't know yet. 

 

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Have these white-coats gone absolutely nuts? Influenza is not a disease. Not caused a virus. And cannot have a vaccine to cure, or prevent, something that don't exist.

 

More quackery from you.

 

Some people don't get the flu because their immune system is very robust. 

 

Some people get the flu but are able to fight off the flu because their immune systems are strong enough.

 

Others are not able to fight off the flu because their immune systems are not strong enough. 

 

So it makes perfect sense to try to develop a mechanism to stimulate an immune response, if they can actually pull it off and if it's safe. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Interesting link.

1) It explains WHY flu vaccines are not always effective:

...

2) mRNA technology works completely differently. It (allegedly) works by inducing "a broad immune response against influenza". It appears to stimulate the immune system.

Will it really work? How safe will it be? .... we don't know yet. 

 

Pfizer knows and have now silently shelved the over-hyped mRNA flu-vaccine they announced.  

Here a link to Alex Berenson's article on that topic: 

> https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/very-urgent-pfizers-mrna-flu-shot

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

Here a link to Alex Berenson's article on that topic: 

 

I don't have time to chase down every link on the planet.

There's a lot of con artists out there.

I doubt they've shelved mRNA permanently.

Or even if they do, it doesn't change the fact that your denial of the validity of the concept is quackery. 

If you don't understand that some people succumb to the flu because of a weakened immune system, then please stay away from the medical profession. 

 

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

I don't have time to chase down every link on the planet.

There's a lot of con artists out there.

I doubt they've shelved mRNA permanently.

Or even if they do, it doesn't change the fact that your denial of the validity of the concept is quackery. 

If you don't understand that some people succumb to the flu because of a weakened immune system, then please stay away from the medical profession. 

 

You asked the question Will it < the mRNA flu vaccine > really work? How safe will it be? .... we don't know yet. 

And the article - posted today - by Alex Berenson makes it clear that Pfizer knows that it is neither safe nor effective compared with the 'traditional' flu-shot.  But rather embarassing to admit that after all the hype, and so they have now silently shelved it. 

> https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/very-urgent-pfizers-mrna-flu-shot

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

And the article - posted today - by Alex Berenson makes it clear that Pfizer knows that it is neither safe nor effective compared with the 'traditional' flu-shot. 

 

So let's assume this conclusion is accurate.

 

It doesn't change that:

1 ) You are mocking and denying the entire concept, as though the immune system can not or should not or never needs to be stimulated by medical intervention such as this mRNA vaccine.

 

2) You are cheering on a failure in the medical community as though it's some sort of personal victory for you. Are you going to lose any sleep over the elderly people whose immune systems are too weak to fight off the flu next winter and will die? Are you cheering that on as well? Or are you pretending it never happens? Do you have a better solution that you've conjured up in your underground lab? 

 

 

12 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

So it makes perfect sense to try to develop a mechanism to stimulate an immune response, if they can actually pull it off and if it's safe. 

Don't make perfect sense to me Sir.

 

We have the mechanisms withing our bodies. They are globulins, and are called into action when necessary. They perform all the actions that are required to keep the body ticking over in real time. They also help isolate and heal. But they cannot function, as they should, unless the body has the minerals within.

 

There are some 60 minerals, that are required for the proper functioning of the system. We get these from food. Unfortunately, much of 'modern' food, is not really food at all, as far as the body is concerned. There is precious little in the way of nutrition in a lot of 'modern' meals.

 

You say 'immune', I say 'maintenance'. You say 'prevent', I might say 'protect'. I'll concede that there is some overlap with those words.

 

We have everything within, that we need for good health to be the norm. BUT, the body must be given the tools and support to do so. That starts with nutritious food. It does not need concoctions bred in lab petri dishes.

 

Just now, Stiddle Mump said:

They are globulins

Leave Gamma out of this !!

 

2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There are some 60 minerals, that are required for the proper functioning of the system. We get these from food. Unfortunately, much of 'modern' food, is not really food at all, as far as the body is concerned. There is precious little in the way of nutrition in a lot of 'modern' meals.

 

You say 'immune', I say 'maintenance'. You say 'prevent', I might say 'protect'. I'll concede that there is some overlap with those words.

 

 

We've already had this discussion multiple times.

If your diet is highly nutritious, then pat yourself on the back.

You may never need a flu vaccine.

 

But many people's diets are not. Or their immune systems are compromised for various other reasons. 

 

So trying to block all medical interventions is neither feasible nor sensible. 

 

35 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

We've already had this discussion multiple times.

If your diet is highly nutritious, then pat yourself on the back.

You may never need a flu vaccine.

 

But many people's diets are not. Or their immune systems are compromised for various other reasons. 

 

So trying to block all medical interventions is neither feasible nor sensible. 

 

If an 'immune' system is not up to the job, the individual can sort this by a change in lifestyle**. There is no medication, that I know of, that can possibly help.

 

Can't poison the body to good health boss.

 

The medical system is not a supporter of good health. It is a reactionary system. For the benefit of Big Pharma and know-nothing white-coats. There don't seem to by much protective education available to me. And that's for kids, parents, students, doctors or the public.

 

A massive change is needed.

 

Nature is us. We are nature.

 

** Some, unfortunately, have the remnants of medicine and vaccines, in their system, making it difficult, if not impossible, for good health to be attained and maintained.

3 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

If an 'immune' system is not up to the job, the individual can sort this by a change in lifestyle**. There is no medication, that I know of, that can possibly help.

 

We've also had this discussion multiple times.

Some people are never going to change their lifestyle sufficiently to avoid illness.

And there are factors out of people's control, such as living in highly polluted cities.

So medical technology is needed.

Of course it should only be used as a crutch.

 

But your "ideal world fantasy" doesn't exist. 

 

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Can You Catch A Cold? - Untold History & Human Experiments

 

Yes.

OF COURSE YOU CAN CATCH A COLD.

 

What an odd question, especially for the headline in a minor topic.

 

=====

So, where and how does one catch a cold?

 

Once catches a cold, at the cellular level, where the "cold" virus attaches to the mechanisms of the cell which help the "cold" virus reproduce.

 

This replication machinery, which is normally used for protein replication, is hijacked by the virus.

 

Therefore, this is, essentially, where and how the "cold" is caught.

 

=============

In other news...

 

If you visit the North Pole, you will catch a piece of the frigid North Pole in your ass, and then you risk dyeing due to hypothermia.

 

I had a friend from uni who actually dyed from hypothermia, in the same way, and he never received his diploma.

 

 

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

We've also had this discussion multiple times.

Some people are never going to change their lifestyle sufficiently to avoid illness.

And there are factors out of people's control, such as living in highly polluted cities.

So medical technology is needed.

Of course it should only be used as a crutch.

 

But your "ideal world fantasy" doesn't exist. 

 

OK.

 

We agree on a lot of little points. Just one seems to be a sticking point. You think medicine can support a less than stable/able body; I say it can't.

 

I'll go with nature rather that the white-coats.

4 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Once catches a cold, at the cellular level, where the "cold" virus attaches to the mechanisms of the cell which help the "cold" virus reproduce.

Monumental humbug Sir.

 

The 'cold' is a set of mild symptoms, that the body sees as the best way to sort itself out, and rid itself of any toxic entities.

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Monumental humbug Sir.

 

The 'cold' is a set of mild symptoms, that the body sees as the best way to sort itself out, and rid itself of any toxic entities.

 

Ah...

 

So you believe that viruses do not exist in our world?

 

And if so, then was not this ENTIRE Germ Theory exercise and discovery process a total waste of your time, and ours?

 

 

30 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

If an 'immune' system is not up to the job, the individual can sort this by a change in lifestyle**. There is no medication, that I know of, that can possibly help.

 

 

Why not just put a cork in it with this medicine, which you say may not exist.

 

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Ah...

 

So you believe that viruses do not exist in our world?

 

And if so, then was not this ENTIRE Germ Theory exercise and discovery process a total waste of your time, and ours?

 

 

Indeed Sir.

 

Pathogenic viruses do not exist in nature. They have never been found, They have therefore not been shown to cause anything.

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1380006-can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history-human-experiments/#comment-20243199

 

3 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Indeed Sir.

 

Pathogenic viruses do not exist in nature. They have never been found, They have therefore not been shown to cause anything.

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1380006-can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history-human-experiments/#comment-20243199

 

 

Indeed.

 

56 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

We have the mechanisms withing our bodies. They are globulins, and are called into action when necessary. They perform all the actions that are required to keep the body ticking over in real time. They also help isolate and heal. But they cannot function, as they should, unless the body has the minerals within.

 

Gross oversimplification.

 

Globulins are only a tiny part of the body’s healing and repair, and your view oversimplifies things. Honestly, it makes me question your grasp of the subject. Claiming globulins do it all is like saying a single brick holds up a whole house — it doesn’t. Healing depends on a network of systems: inflammation, cellular regeneration, hormones, and the immune response all play far bigger roles.

 

 

1 minute ago, Bacon1 said:

 

Gross oversimplification.

 

Globulins are only a tiny part of the body’s healing and repair, and your view oversimplifies things. Honestly, it makes me question your grasp of the subject. Claiming globulins do it all is like saying a single brick holds up a whole house — it doesn’t. Healing depends on a network of systems: inflammation, cellular regeneration, hormones, and the immune response all play far bigger roles.

 

Don't neglect the bio-electrical aspects or the mind Sir.

 

The way to the body is through the mind; as they say.

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

You asked the question Will it < the mRNA flu vaccine > really work? How safe will it be? .... we don't know yet. 

And the article - posted today - by Alex Berenson makes it clear that Pfizer knows that it is neither safe nor effective compared with the 'traditional' flu-shot.  But rather embarassing to admit that after all the hype, and so they have now silently shelved it. 

> https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/very-urgent-pfizers-mrna-flu-shot

This is incorrect. Pfizer was at first trying to develop a standalone mRNA flu vaccine but while it worked well with younger patients, it failed to meet targets for seniors 65 and over. Last year, it tested a combination Covid 19 and Flu shot. That shot worked well against Covid and the A strain of flu but failed to meet efficacy goals for the B strain.  Moderna has had the same problem, a vaccine that works well against the A strain of flu but not the B strain. 

 

Pfizer anyway is continuing to work on a mRNA flu vaccine so it hasn't abandoned the project.

 

Development of mRNA vaccines in general will undoubtedly be hampered though by RFK Jr's elimination of government funding.

37 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Last year, it tested a combination Covid 19 and Flu shot. That shot worked well against Covid and the A strain of flu but failed to meet efficacy goals for the B strain.  Moderna has had the same problem, a vaccine that works well against the A strain of flu but not the B strain. 

This is nonsense.

 

I know not your research Sir, but it is completely anti-nature.

 

I don't think Pfizer nor Moderna never made so much as a petri dish, let alone a vaccine. They are simply the links between the Military and the bio-labs.

1 hour ago, Bacon1 said:

Globulins are only a tiny part

 

Yes, but GammaGlobulins are far more important.

I could write a PhD Thesis supporting the importance of GammaGlobulins for proper maintenance of almost every facet of our daily health and philosophical well-being.

I even prove this on a daily basis.

 

 

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Yes, but GammaGlobulins are far more important.

I could write a PhD Thesis supporting the importance of GammaGlobulins for proper maintenance of almost every facet of our daily health and philosophical well-being.

I even prove this on a daily basis.

 

 

 

Once you’ve done it, you can present and defend it to me in your viva.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

OK.

 

We agree on a lot of little points. Just one seems to be a sticking point. You think medicine can support a less than stable/able body; I say it can't.

 

I'll go with nature rather that the white-coats.

 

I had a surgery a while ago.

Was prescribed anti-biotics IN CASE of infection.

The body (or at least the part of the body that was operated on) is in a lowered immune state / there's an open wound that is more susceptible to infection.

 

I could have taken a chance and not taken the anti-biotics as a precaution.

But it's impossible to know if the body would get an infection or be able to fight it off.

 

As an example that you are being too idealized.

 

Anyway, getting tired of rehashing the same arguments.

 

All the best in your quest for perfect health.

 

42 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

 

Once you’ve done it, you can present and defend it to me in your viva.

 

Very much looking forward to this impending opportunity...

 

The true pleasure lies in the defense, as we all know.