Reich wrote about "bions," which might well have been some kind of sub-microscopic life form undetectable with the optics then but observable with dark field microscopy, or perhaps with the equipment Rife created; I know only a little about this topic. What I do know is that the persecution of Reich, who died in prison, is a disgrace and an outrage and a black mark on the United States judicial system. That said, Reich was a very strange man indeeed, and evidently alientated people in every country he lived in. I think it will be another century before his work is properly appraised, though a great many small-minded persons continue to slander him, like the remarkable Albert Abrams, long after the brave men died. There is a lesson there for those who try to find new things. . . .
I do not think there would be any connection between bions and prions, but am not positive. I am familiar with proions and with bions, and think these are not related. Ode Coyote wrote: > > Have you seen one turn into a grasshopper? > Perhaps you refer to the speckled moth Myth? > What about the butterfly? > > If you look into Wilhelm Reichs work, he discovered what I think he was > first to call a prion. > According to him, It is an organized non living something that tranforms > into a virus, back into a prion and into a bacteria depending on its > environment. > Is it true, complete and completely accurate, or was it his fantasy? > I dunno. > He said and did lots of fantastic things that bend beliveability. > But it's still a non species turning into a species, not an advanced > species turning into another one. > ..and I didn't say that was impossible, just that we have yet to find > evidence that it's happened 'here' without some intelligent intervention. > [and we don't have the ability to look elsewhere yet] > > Ask a scientist about alien visitation and they'll say they can't get > here from there. > Well, we can't get there from here. > We have no idea what 'they' can do, have done, when or where, or to what. > ..just a bunch of evidence that we don't know a whole lot. > > Look into 'rods and critters' for a mind bender with evidence to support > it. [incidently, somewhat connected to Reichs work after he died by > Constable Treavor who attempted to carry on in the fifties] > But one mind bender doesn't prove another mind bender. > Ken > > At 03:23 PM 3/4/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >There has never been any evidence found at all to support the idea that > > > any species has ever transformed into another species on this planet be it > > > plant or animal. > > > >What about the butterfly? > >John. > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ode Coyote" <[email protected]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:42 AM > >Subject: Re: CS>New Germ Theory > > > > > > > > > > There has never been any evidence found at all to support the idea that > > > any species has ever transformed into another species on this planet be it > > > plant or animal. Other planets? We don't know. There is some evidence, > > > though not proof, that something like that has been going on whether it be > > > evolution or engineering. If it is considered, it does tend to fit a lot > >of > > > broken pieces into the puzzle with a lighter weight hammer. > > > Yes, there is a large amount of proof that several species of hominid > > > have existed on this planet in the past and that their and our genetics > >are > > > similar...but our genetics are very similar to a pig too. The FACT is, we > > > don't know how they [or we] got here. All we have is theories. > > > > > > Paleontologists and establishments have tendency to lose things that > > > don't fit the theorys and lose the people that find them. The basement of > > > the Smithsonian are full of them..things like 3 million year old iron > > > hammers...12,000 yr old models of airplanes similar in design to our > > > own jets today....while the displays upstairs sometimes perpetrate items > > > that have been shown to be outright frauds and straws grasped in order to > > > build some semblance of a house for the theory to live on in when even > > > Darwin himself was becoming doubtful in his own lifetime. > > > > > > By all evidence, our own history of origins is a great deal richer than > > > we dare to imagine and a lot longer and a lot more diverse. > > > But, we pay people to 'know' things because we just can't stand not to. > > > So, we wind up 'knowing' things that aren't exactly true in the face of > > > the other evidence which includes our own ancient written records that > > > spell it out, but are dismissed as myth when the spelling doesn't make up > >a > > > sentence that matches the official story. > > > > > > If you read up on the story of finding the Panda bear and compare that > >to > > > the current story of and evidence found in the search for Big Foot, you > >can > > > see where the only certain thing is uncertainty. Tasmanian tiger? A > > > similar story of certainty reluctantly smashed to pieces and myths turning > > > into history. > > > Science can be quite off base and has been proven to be so many times > > > when things that don't fit surface enough to stare the scientists down. > > > > > > It would behoove us to be very careful when observing the world around > >us > > > with ANY agenda in mind, be it establishment status quo OR conspiracy. > > > [Only Devils have hooves, right? The evil questioners who make the gods > > > look foolish.] > > > > > > Be aware that the 'gods' of officialdom are not the only gods around. > > > Anti-officialadom is rife with 'gods' too. > > > > > > Case in point....the silver 'myth'. > > > That's why we have this silver list, ey? > > > > > > I think the only true statement that can be made is that we don't know > > > very much at all and that's something that's very difficult to > > > admit...especially for a specialist who is paid to be certain and stands > >to > > > lose a lot of face [and maybe his job] when proven otherwise. > > > ken > > > > > > At 11:32 AM 3/3/2003 -0600, you wrote: > > > >Gee, I thought that there was lots of > > > >proof.....like, say, the advancement > > > >of tools and tool making at > > > >prehistoric excavation sites. Kit > > > > > > > > > > > >At 10:27 AM 3/3/03 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > OK, so we have a hypothesis of evolution. It certainly has not been > > > >proven. > > > > > That we can't imagine how it could be otherwise is only a comment on > > > > >imagination. > > > > >..seems we all have a big problem with, 'I dunno'. > > > > > > > > > >[not excluding myself] > > > > >Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > > > > > > >Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org > > > > > > > >To post, address your message to: [email protected] > > > > > > > >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > > > > > > >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> > > >
