So, if the plagues were a result of chemicals or some other environmental factor, how do you explain all the studies where they track down records and whatnot, then dig up bodies analyze bones and isolate different strains of bacteria/viruses through DNA?
What I mean is that it seems it has already been explained through countless independent studies, even with such specificity as to be able to track these tiny monsters' family trees and geographic origins. It stands to reason that it was microbes that caused it.
Granted, diseases flourish when times are tough. A comet or large enough volcanic eruption causing a dark cold couple of years could really throw everything out of wack. (And there is a lot of evidence of such disasters.) So it is obviously a contributing factor. But I posit that these natural disasters essentially made conditions perfect for a pandemic rather than being the actual plague.
Further, it would have to be a really big nasty space rock to be able to pollute the atmosphere to that level of concentration to make that many people sick over that large of an area. It surely would have left a huge chemical signature in things like bones trees and soil, etc. Where is the evidence?
If you read the whole article, including the update, you would see that we are not talking about a single "big nasty space rock". What we are seeing is a mass of comet and meteor activity over a span of time, which becomes especially intense, in this case, in the years 536 and 540-541 CE.
If you read the article you would also see that Greenland ice cores (Antarctica too, by the way) record A CONCENTRATED ACCUMULATION OF AMMONIA (indicating interactions from space), certain metals (indicating heavy meteor activity) AND SULFUR (indicating cataclysmic, world altering volcanic activity).
In fact, not just one but several SUPERVOLCANOES are indicated for the time period.
So I have already answered your question about a "chemical signature".
Moreover, tree rings indicate extreme bad climate conditions for those years. Three or more supervolcanos at different places in the globe PLUS heavy meteor/comet i interactions, plus other possible releases of gasses from the earth (such as from seabeds or volcanic lakes) can certainly foul the air for a large percentage of the world, at the same time destroying their crops and leading to famine.
As to digging up bodies, analyzing bones and "isolating different strains of bacteria/viruses through DNA?" I believe you have the wrong concept if you think they are "isolating" anything. What they do, as I understand it, is run PCR tests and look for specific very short segments of DNA which they believe to provide a "signature" for certain bacteria or "viruses." In the case of viruses, we have already seen through the Covid scandal that PCR can be totally fraudulent. Not to say everyone administering or utilizing PCR is aware of that; most are not.
But lets just assume for the sake of the argument that these tests are valid and that they are detecting specific strains of either bacteria or viruses. That still does not prove cause.
If you review the literature you will find that there are tons of "deadly bacteria" and "viruses" in normal, healthy people. Moreover, certain bacteria accumulate like flies in dead bodies; neither flies nor even vultures kill anybody, but you will always find them wherever there is a dead body.
For bacteria, the case is even more so because they multiply in dead or dying tissue; they help to break it down and return it to an innocuous state.
Finding a PCR signature assumed to belong to a virus or a strain of bacteria does not indicate what caused the death of that person or animal.
Moreover, if we go to the Black Plague period, you will see that certain studies "found" Y. pestis DNA... because they were looking for it. But other researchers have contested that Y. pestis was the cause of the Black plague, and they decide it must be not a bacteria but a virus. Maybe its anthrax or smallpox or who knows what. So they go looking for that, whatever they happen to think it is, AND THEY FIND IT! (i.e. their PCR tests seem to indicate the presence of whatever "virus" they think is the cause).
So if one group "finds" y. pestis and another group finds some "virus", which was the cause?????
But as already stated, these bacteria and these proteins claimed to belong to viruses are found everywhere, in the healthy and sick alike. They are nearly ubiquitous, some more in certain instances than others.
In order for chemicals to produce symptoms such as blistering, immune response, etc., they would have to be potent in very high concentrations. That kind of concentration in the open atmosphere requires a LOT of material, whether it is from one or two or twenty million space rocks or the biggest volcanic eruption ever, or something else or whatever.
That level of concentration would not be in trace amounts here and there, in ice and soil and tree samples. It would be everywhere in everything in much higher concentration, and it would have killed a LOT more than 1/3 of European humans. And would not have spread like a biological entity. It would have been more like an extinction level event. There would be accounts from survivors of the masses choking and puking convulsing etc. like it was a chemical warfare attack from god or something. Evidence says there were events, but nothing near that level.
Chemicals do not explain the Bubonic Plague.
What DOES explain it is all the evidence collected by a bazillion scientists ever since it happened. It was a bacteria that was able to spread through shipping routes via rats and fleas and humans. They know this because they have taken so many DNA samples and analyzed them so much that they have actually been able to identify the family tree of the bacteria, the progression of it's evolution as it spread across Europe and Asia, ...as in which strains spread where and when and how.
That data/research has even been used to discover a gene mutation that makes some people completely immune to things like Bubonic Plague and HIV/AIDS.
Check this out. Take note of the process of discovery.
The Plague: How Did One Village Survive? | Riddle Of The Plague Survivors | Timeline
The following excerpt from Sasha Dobler’s Black Death and Abrupt Earth Changes (2018), p.65, discusses the symptoms:
…………
Contemporary writers gave very different descriptions of symptoms and modern day editors had a lot of work to do in order to arrive at a consensus of what the victims suffered from. If I would have to give a condensed summery, I would say: Nobody really knows!
Hecker [one of the most learned German physicians of the early 19th century in his treatise on the Black Death] maintains that the characteristic buboes that are confined to the groin and armpits don’t appear in the primary sources written by doctors at the time:
“Only two medical descriptions of the malady have reached us, the one by the brave Guy de Chauliac, the other by Raymond Chalin de Vinario, a very experienced scholar, who was well versed in the learning of the time. The former takes notice only of fatal coughing of blood; the latter, besides this, notices epistaxis, hematuria, and fluxes of blood from the bowels, as symptoms of such decided and speedy mortality, that those patients in whom they were observed usually died on the same or the following day.”
As seen above, I did find only one contemporary source, Konrad von Megenberg, that can be
reliably be considered unaltered, who explicitly describes buboes in the armpits (see page 100).
And then Hecker directly addresses atmospheric poisons involved:
“Now, if we go back to the symptoms of the disease, the ardent inflammation of the lungs points out, that the organs of respiration yielded to the attack of an atmospheric poison− a poison which, if we admit the independent origin of the Black Plague at any one place of the globe, which, under such extraordinary circumstances, it would be difficult to doubt, attacked the course of the circulation in as hostile a manner as that which produces inflammation of the spleen, and other animal contagions that cause swelling and inflammation of the lymphatic glands.”
C. Morris [1893] recounts of:
“(…) large black or deep-blue spots over the body, from which came the name of “Black Death.” Some of the victims became sleepy and stupid; others were incessantly restless. The tongue and throat grew black; the lungs exhaled a noisome odor; an insatiable thirst was produced.”
There is no safe way to confirm what percentage of the afflicted did actually have any buboes at all. Most sources speak of non-discriminate, ‘boils; furuncles, cysts’ distributed over the body, and/or black/blue spots all over the body. Not all of them even mention the outward effect on the skin.
As a side note, black/blue spots would today likely be diagnosed as Kaposi Sarcoma which is believed to be a cause of HIV, but can be a simple result of chronic amyl nitrate poisoning (amyl nitrate are the main ingredients of the party drug poppers).
Any nitrites enhance neutrophil-induced DNA strand breakage in pulmonary epithelial.209 Organic compounds similar to amyl nitrate can be created in high velocity impacts [note: “impacts” can be used to describe atmospheric bursts that leave no craters]. Similar hydrocarbons are contained in comet tails, for instance CO, (carbon monoxide), and CN (cyanogen) are common in comet tails.
"What DOES explain it is all the evidence collected by a bazillion scientists ever since it happened. It was a bacteria that was able to spread through shipping routes via rats and fleas and humans." This above quote is what 'John' claims, but bacteria, just as Tobin Owl states quite rightly, that bacteria multiply in dead or dying tissue, they help to break it down and return it to an innocuous state. To sum up, bacteria does not spread from person to person nor from rats, fleas or humans. Bacteria is generated from within our systems to clean up, heal and repair. Bacteria is an inside-out process - not an outside-in (infectious) process. John has made a mistake as he believes that it is an outside-in (infectious) process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do you think that the transmission route (Bovine TB) has never been found. Its because there is no transmission route and that is why after 100 years they still cannot find it and they never will find it.
John, you need to understand that when you say that some people are immune to things like Bubonic plague, you are suggesting that humans possess a so-called 'immune system'. Go to the book WHAT REALLY MAKES YOU ILL by Dawn Lester & David Parker - page 113/114/115. A Dr. Garrison Fathman MD, a professor of immunology states that he regards the immune system as a 'black box', in the context that there is not a great deal of knowledge about its internal 'workings'. This is an astounding admission considering the strenuous efforts of the medical establishment to promote the idea that the immune system protects people from 'infectious disease'. Th article also reports that, if asked by a patient about the state of their immune system, Dr. Fathman is quoted to have stated that he would have difficulty in responding, "I would have no idea how to answer that, and I'm an immunologist. None of us can answer that." Taking the above into consideration, the two authors then claim that we do not possess an 'immune system', we possess and repair and maintenance system, and they have surely got that right. To sum up, there is no immune system, and so the idea of taking a vaccine to cause immunity is utter nonsense.
I tried watching the video but it’s pure drama. They don’t even get the order of events correct: in London the most severe time was when the plague first hit, and it was respiratory. The appearance of buboes was not until at least several days later in those who had escaped or survived the respiratory attack. Moreover, it was not just buboes in the armpits or groin: large black and blue spots appeared all over the body according to contemporary reports, also seen in paintings and engravings, causing some scientists to contest that it was bubonic plague at all—the symptoms don’t match the symptom picture of modern day bubonic plague. Thus some have suggested smallpox or anthrax.
If the “science” is so clear, why are there scientists questioning what it really was? I even found a paper that suggested that the “Black Plague” should not be considered a single affliction but a complex variety of afflictions varying by locality.
I’m afraid drama documentaries don’t portray what really went on with any trustworthiness.
My fair friend, I think it would be better if you try to learn something about what you are contesting before being so sure in your assertions. In comment on a previous post, you tried to claim that the Black Plague was proof of a virus, but now you are absolutely sure it was caused by a bacterium, only because I've pointed out that the bacterium theory has been the prominent theory for the last 100 years.
You also claimed that the children's game "ring around the rosy" originated with the Black Plague, but I have found no mention of rosy spots during the 14th century events, only of black and blue spots, and these not in all cases.
I have been studying this question quite in depth, my friend.
"The disease is threefold in its infection; that is to say, firstly, men suffer in their lungs and breathing, and whoever have these corrupted, or even slightly attacked, cannot by any
means escape nor live beyond two days. Examinations have been made by doctors in many cities of Italy, and also in Avignon, by order of the Pope, in order to discover the origin of this disease. Many dead bodies have been thus opened and dissected, and it is found that all who have died thus suddenly have had their lungs infected and have spat blood.”
By the way, in latin in the 14th century, infectare meant "to affect" rather than what we conceive today as "infect"
So, if the plagues were a result of chemicals or some other environmental factor, how do you explain all the studies where they track down records and whatnot, then dig up bodies analyze bones and isolate different strains of bacteria/viruses through DNA?
What I mean is that it seems it has already been explained through countless independent studies, even with such specificity as to be able to track these tiny monsters' family trees and geographic origins. It stands to reason that it was microbes that caused it.
Granted, diseases flourish when times are tough. A comet or large enough volcanic eruption causing a dark cold couple of years could really throw everything out of wack. (And there is a lot of evidence of such disasters.) So it is obviously a contributing factor. But I posit that these natural disasters essentially made conditions perfect for a pandemic rather than being the actual plague.
Further, it would have to be a really big nasty space rock to be able to pollute the atmosphere to that level of concentration to make that many people sick over that large of an area. It surely would have left a huge chemical signature in things like bones trees and soil, etc. Where is the evidence?
Ok. A lot to unpack.
If you read the whole article, including the update, you would see that we are not talking about a single "big nasty space rock". What we are seeing is a mass of comet and meteor activity over a span of time, which becomes especially intense, in this case, in the years 536 and 540-541 CE.
If you read the article you would also see that Greenland ice cores (Antarctica too, by the way) record A CONCENTRATED ACCUMULATION OF AMMONIA (indicating interactions from space), certain metals (indicating heavy meteor activity) AND SULFUR (indicating cataclysmic, world altering volcanic activity).
In fact, not just one but several SUPERVOLCANOES are indicated for the time period.
So I have already answered your question about a "chemical signature".
Moreover, tree rings indicate extreme bad climate conditions for those years. Three or more supervolcanos at different places in the globe PLUS heavy meteor/comet i interactions, plus other possible releases of gasses from the earth (such as from seabeds or volcanic lakes) can certainly foul the air for a large percentage of the world, at the same time destroying their crops and leading to famine.
As to digging up bodies, analyzing bones and "isolating different strains of bacteria/viruses through DNA?" I believe you have the wrong concept if you think they are "isolating" anything. What they do, as I understand it, is run PCR tests and look for specific very short segments of DNA which they believe to provide a "signature" for certain bacteria or "viruses." In the case of viruses, we have already seen through the Covid scandal that PCR can be totally fraudulent. Not to say everyone administering or utilizing PCR is aware of that; most are not.
But lets just assume for the sake of the argument that these tests are valid and that they are detecting specific strains of either bacteria or viruses. That still does not prove cause.
If you review the literature you will find that there are tons of "deadly bacteria" and "viruses" in normal, healthy people. Moreover, certain bacteria accumulate like flies in dead bodies; neither flies nor even vultures kill anybody, but you will always find them wherever there is a dead body.
For bacteria, the case is even more so because they multiply in dead or dying tissue; they help to break it down and return it to an innocuous state.
Finding a PCR signature assumed to belong to a virus or a strain of bacteria does not indicate what caused the death of that person or animal.
Moreover, if we go to the Black Plague period, you will see that certain studies "found" Y. pestis DNA... because they were looking for it. But other researchers have contested that Y. pestis was the cause of the Black plague, and they decide it must be not a bacteria but a virus. Maybe its anthrax or smallpox or who knows what. So they go looking for that, whatever they happen to think it is, AND THEY FIND IT! (i.e. their PCR tests seem to indicate the presence of whatever "virus" they think is the cause).
So if one group "finds" y. pestis and another group finds some "virus", which was the cause?????
But as already stated, these bacteria and these proteins claimed to belong to viruses are found everywhere, in the healthy and sick alike. They are nearly ubiquitous, some more in certain instances than others.
In order for chemicals to produce symptoms such as blistering, immune response, etc., they would have to be potent in very high concentrations. That kind of concentration in the open atmosphere requires a LOT of material, whether it is from one or two or twenty million space rocks or the biggest volcanic eruption ever, or something else or whatever.
That level of concentration would not be in trace amounts here and there, in ice and soil and tree samples. It would be everywhere in everything in much higher concentration, and it would have killed a LOT more than 1/3 of European humans. And would not have spread like a biological entity. It would have been more like an extinction level event. There would be accounts from survivors of the masses choking and puking convulsing etc. like it was a chemical warfare attack from god or something. Evidence says there were events, but nothing near that level.
Chemicals do not explain the Bubonic Plague.
What DOES explain it is all the evidence collected by a bazillion scientists ever since it happened. It was a bacteria that was able to spread through shipping routes via rats and fleas and humans. They know this because they have taken so many DNA samples and analyzed them so much that they have actually been able to identify the family tree of the bacteria, the progression of it's evolution as it spread across Europe and Asia, ...as in which strains spread where and when and how.
That data/research has even been used to discover a gene mutation that makes some people completely immune to things like Bubonic Plague and HIV/AIDS.
Check this out. Take note of the process of discovery.
The Plague: How Did One Village Survive? | Riddle Of The Plague Survivors | Timeline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfRJEm96Lgo
The following excerpt from Sasha Dobler’s Black Death and Abrupt Earth Changes (2018), p.65, discusses the symptoms:
…………
Contemporary writers gave very different descriptions of symptoms and modern day editors had a lot of work to do in order to arrive at a consensus of what the victims suffered from. If I would have to give a condensed summery, I would say: Nobody really knows!
Hecker [one of the most learned German physicians of the early 19th century in his treatise on the Black Death] maintains that the characteristic buboes that are confined to the groin and armpits don’t appear in the primary sources written by doctors at the time:
“Only two medical descriptions of the malady have reached us, the one by the brave Guy de Chauliac, the other by Raymond Chalin de Vinario, a very experienced scholar, who was well versed in the learning of the time. The former takes notice only of fatal coughing of blood; the latter, besides this, notices epistaxis, hematuria, and fluxes of blood from the bowels, as symptoms of such decided and speedy mortality, that those patients in whom they were observed usually died on the same or the following day.”
As seen above, I did find only one contemporary source, Konrad von Megenberg, that can be
reliably be considered unaltered, who explicitly describes buboes in the armpits (see page 100).
And then Hecker directly addresses atmospheric poisons involved:
“Now, if we go back to the symptoms of the disease, the ardent inflammation of the lungs points out, that the organs of respiration yielded to the attack of an atmospheric poison− a poison which, if we admit the independent origin of the Black Plague at any one place of the globe, which, under such extraordinary circumstances, it would be difficult to doubt, attacked the course of the circulation in as hostile a manner as that which produces inflammation of the spleen, and other animal contagions that cause swelling and inflammation of the lymphatic glands.”
C. Morris [1893] recounts of:
“(…) large black or deep-blue spots over the body, from which came the name of “Black Death.” Some of the victims became sleepy and stupid; others were incessantly restless. The tongue and throat grew black; the lungs exhaled a noisome odor; an insatiable thirst was produced.”
There is no safe way to confirm what percentage of the afflicted did actually have any buboes at all. Most sources speak of non-discriminate, ‘boils; furuncles, cysts’ distributed over the body, and/or black/blue spots all over the body. Not all of them even mention the outward effect on the skin.
As a side note, black/blue spots would today likely be diagnosed as Kaposi Sarcoma which is believed to be a cause of HIV, but can be a simple result of chronic amyl nitrate poisoning (amyl nitrate are the main ingredients of the party drug poppers).
Any nitrites enhance neutrophil-induced DNA strand breakage in pulmonary epithelial.209 Organic compounds similar to amyl nitrate can be created in high velocity impacts [note: “impacts” can be used to describe atmospheric bursts that leave no craters]. Similar hydrocarbons are contained in comet tails, for instance CO, (carbon monoxide), and CN (cyanogen) are common in comet tails.
"What DOES explain it is all the evidence collected by a bazillion scientists ever since it happened. It was a bacteria that was able to spread through shipping routes via rats and fleas and humans." This above quote is what 'John' claims, but bacteria, just as Tobin Owl states quite rightly, that bacteria multiply in dead or dying tissue, they help to break it down and return it to an innocuous state. To sum up, bacteria does not spread from person to person nor from rats, fleas or humans. Bacteria is generated from within our systems to clean up, heal and repair. Bacteria is an inside-out process - not an outside-in (infectious) process. John has made a mistake as he believes that it is an outside-in (infectious) process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do you think that the transmission route (Bovine TB) has never been found. Its because there is no transmission route and that is why after 100 years they still cannot find it and they never will find it.
John, you need to understand that when you say that some people are immune to things like Bubonic plague, you are suggesting that humans possess a so-called 'immune system'. Go to the book WHAT REALLY MAKES YOU ILL by Dawn Lester & David Parker - page 113/114/115. A Dr. Garrison Fathman MD, a professor of immunology states that he regards the immune system as a 'black box', in the context that there is not a great deal of knowledge about its internal 'workings'. This is an astounding admission considering the strenuous efforts of the medical establishment to promote the idea that the immune system protects people from 'infectious disease'. Th article also reports that, if asked by a patient about the state of their immune system, Dr. Fathman is quoted to have stated that he would have difficulty in responding, "I would have no idea how to answer that, and I'm an immunologist. None of us can answer that." Taking the above into consideration, the two authors then claim that we do not possess an 'immune system', we possess and repair and maintenance system, and they have surely got that right. To sum up, there is no immune system, and so the idea of taking a vaccine to cause immunity is utter nonsense.
I tried watching the video but it’s pure drama. They don’t even get the order of events correct: in London the most severe time was when the plague first hit, and it was respiratory. The appearance of buboes was not until at least several days later in those who had escaped or survived the respiratory attack. Moreover, it was not just buboes in the armpits or groin: large black and blue spots appeared all over the body according to contemporary reports, also seen in paintings and engravings, causing some scientists to contest that it was bubonic plague at all—the symptoms don’t match the symptom picture of modern day bubonic plague. Thus some have suggested smallpox or anthrax.
If the “science” is so clear, why are there scientists questioning what it really was? I even found a paper that suggested that the “Black Plague” should not be considered a single affliction but a complex variety of afflictions varying by locality.
I’m afraid drama documentaries don’t portray what really went on with any trustworthiness.
My fair friend, I think it would be better if you try to learn something about what you are contesting before being so sure in your assertions. In comment on a previous post, you tried to claim that the Black Plague was proof of a virus, but now you are absolutely sure it was caused by a bacterium, only because I've pointed out that the bacterium theory has been the prominent theory for the last 100 years.
You also claimed that the children's game "ring around the rosy" originated with the Black Plague, but I have found no mention of rosy spots during the 14th century events, only of black and blue spots, and these not in all cases.
I have been studying this question quite in depth, my friend.
Early account:
"The disease is threefold in its infection; that is to say, firstly, men suffer in their lungs and breathing, and whoever have these corrupted, or even slightly attacked, cannot by any
means escape nor live beyond two days. Examinations have been made by doctors in many cities of Italy, and also in Avignon, by order of the Pope, in order to discover the origin of this disease. Many dead bodies have been thus opened and dissected, and it is found that all who have died thus suddenly have had their lungs infected and have spat blood.”
By the way, in latin in the 14th century, infectare meant "to affect" rather than what we conceive today as "infect"