What is a living thing?

The most basic concept in Science and how it unravels everything.

A few months ago I wrote a series of articles on Psyop’s. The one that still seems to cause the most consternation for some readers is about the “No such thing as a virus” narrative. While I made the psyop articles with the same intent as all my other articles, that is an exercise too show people HOW to think rather than telling people WHAT to think; some people were so offended by the conclusion that they became blind to the process that generated the conclusion, and flatly refused to engage in any thought process to determine themselves whether the “No Virus” narrative was in fact false. There is something about the narrative crafted by the psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman, that seems to be able to stop people from being ABLE to think.

Why communicating the process of thought to stubborn virus deniers is so dear to me is that every post on my substack, starting with my very first,

was made to inspire people to think. The problems of today as far as I can see, stems from people stuck in the habit of following someone who tells them what to think. Without a change, where people start thinking themselves instead of following, humanity has slim chance of finding a way out of the mess we currently are in. A temporary solution brought on by following the “Right” authority is quickly undone when the “Wrong” authority (who often pretends to be a “Righteous” one) takes over and subsequently leads people astray.

This entire substack is an exercise with examples on how everyone can think problems through using process, instead of relying on others to tell them what to think and what to do. For example with doctors, instead of asking, “Is Covid deadly?”, most highly educated and intellectually capable doctors blindly followed media and authority. Instead of asking what factors increased mortality (such as low vitamin D), what patients had difficulties with infection (overweight, diabetes, and elderly), doctors blindly followed “experts” instead of thinking for themselves. Had even just 30% of doctors spoken publicly about the true risks of COVID-19, all the societal damage from this pandemic could have been stopped by the summer of 2020.

More than anything, the lack of reasoned thought that is most obvious in doctors, actually plagues most if not all of modern society today. Even within the “Freedom and Truth” movement, a vast majority of people are still habitually accepting of being TOLD what to think (but only from an “authority” other than the mainstream media). The self congratulatory feeling that they didn’t fall for the false authorities on TV, leads many to a complacency of never thinking that there are also false authorities on alternative media as well.

Here is where thinking becomes a matter of life or death. Without reason, and observation, doing the right thing by following someone else is a matter of happenstance and luck. If you follow the right person, you’re good. If you’re deceived by the wrong person pretending to be the right one, then you’re not. Swearing by one authority or another without ever becoming your own authority able to hold others accountable removes the fail safe that stops “leaders” from causing harm. This can only happen when thinking, observation and reason become the standard of behavior in society and not the exception.

Because I’ve failed to convey the importance of reason and the process of thought to those who’ve been trapped by psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman, and his claims about cell biology, namely that there is no such thing as a virus, I am trying here again, to set straight what a psychiatrist made wrong by using the simplest but most important of all thought exercises.

What is a living thing?

---

(For a background on the 2 articles that led to this rehash, I’ve posted them below.)

AND

---

The most important lesson in biology is knowing what is the difference between living and non-living things. There are 3 features that define “Living” on this planet.

1. Reproduction

2. Adaptation

3. Inheritance through DNA / RNA

Without all three of the above, nothing is considered to be a “living” thing on this earth.

---

Crystals, for example, can reproduce, but they can’t adapt. The crystal is always the same. Some proteins can “adapt”, taking on different shapes according to temperature or acidity, but they can’t reproduce unless they are a prion. However, a “reproducing protein” such as a prion only makes copies of itself like a crystal, lacking the transfer of any “new” adaptation from the predecessor (parent) to the successor (offspring) — therefore it lacks inheritance.

---

In Biology, as we know it, these 3 features are the defining factors that separate the living world from the non-living world.

---

Now the topic of Viruses

1. Do the encapsulated segments of DNA or RNA that we call viruses reproduce?

   Yes.

2. Do they adapt to their environment?

   Yes. (when 80%-90% of Covid 19’s “environment” has antibodies to spike proteins, the virus evolves and changes its spike proteins to avoid those antibodies — and become “variants”)

3. Do virus offspring inherit adaptations from their parents?

   Yes. (Through DNA or RNA) The genetic family tree list of many species of animal, bacteria and virus are stored on genbank. With COVID 19, analysis of these genetic family trees and their DNA/RNA sequences, can lead to some surprising conclusions. For example, how some family trees of COVID variants are nearly impossible from natural evolution. To see how the “variants of concern” were most likely manmade, this paper here from Japan shows the genetic analysis of COVID’s family trees:

https://zenodo.org/records/8361577

---

Viruses are living things.

(Despite what anyone claims some biology “textbook” says)

• If someone claims that viruses aren’t living because viruses are a parasite that needs another living thing to reproduce, then ask if intestinal tapeworms are non-living as well?

• Are farm animals not living? (Because they need another living thing - the farmer- to reproduce and live?)

• Are humans not a “living thing” because we need a planet in order to reproduce and “live”?

For a virus, the cell it grows inside is its “Planet”. For skin bacteria, the body that feeds it enough dead cells to live and reproduce is its “Environment”. Whether an entity is a parasite or not is a non-sequitr to any argument of living vs. non-living.

(If someone is blind to this logical non-sequitr, consider the possibility their mind is trapped in a psy op)

Living things aren’t living because someone says so, they’re living because they possess 3 abilities that non-living things do not.

---

Do viruses cause disease?

The answer is not always. Living things can have 3 types of relationships with other living things in nature.

1. Parasitic - One living thing lives off another and causes harm to the host.

2. Commensal - One living thing lives off another and causes neither harm nor benefit.

3. Symbiotic - One living thing lives off another and also helps its host.

The observations that led to this classification of relationships between living things are not some “Germ theory conspiracy”. It is an observation of 3 patterns of living found in nature that anyone can go outside and confirm for themselves.

---

If a virus uses resources to multiply it:

1. It can be parasitic if it is using the same material the body uses,

2. Commensal if the virus only uses that which the body does not use such as waste or material the body doesn’t need.

3. Symbiotic if a virus can offer some benefit to the host, such as turn a waste into nutrient, as gut bacteria do, or offer offer some sort of protection, e.g. Herpes Simplex 1 infection — cold sores— confer partial protection against genital herpes — Herpes Simplex 2.

In fact this latter idea of making viruses symbiotic to help people has been explored by engineering viruses to only attack and kill cancerous cells. Claiming that “Viruses don’t cause disease” as many virus deniers do, is more a statement of ignorance than anything else. Viruses can take up any sort of lifestyle from disease causing and harmful, to immunity granting and helpful such as cowpox infections protecting against smallpox. Genetic engineering of viruses has been ongoing for decades, but the irony is that many virus deniers will also believe “bioweapons” exist. Point out that a basic type of bioweapon is a parasitic segment of DNA or RNA packaged in a protein coat (aka a virus), virus deniers will often have a blank look come over their face. In my experience, people trapped in cults or those who’ve had hypnotic blocks placed in their minds behave similarly.

---

As I explained in Psyop Part 1, the conspiracy of “Germ Theory against Terrain Theory” only seems to exist in the minds of virus deniers. Even though I point out that medical schools teach pre-existing conditions, health and malnutrition as factors in disease, virus deniers insist that such things related to “terrain” are not taught in medical school. (The fact that they’ve never been to medical school doesn’t stop their insistence that such things are not taught.) Back in the 2000’s, certain bacteria were already known to be symbiotic for decades, and probiotics were taught in my medical school to help patients recover from the indiscriminate eradication of good bacteria from antibiotic use. Bring this fact to the attention of an Andrew Kaufman follower, however, the response is usually an emotional and angry insistence that they “know” only “germ theory” is taught in medical school. Despite never having been to a medical school they “know” because they’ve watched videos that told them so.

---

How does the psychiatrist Dr. Kaufman create such a strong attachment to a narrative? How does he manipulate the mind such that the victim’s own identity seems to hinge on the Kaufman’s “story” being true? Why do people defend that identity narrative even when the contradictions and falsehoods become apparent?

What is it about Psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman that makes his stories so compelling that followers experience emotional reactions that override reason and perception of reality?

• Is it a form of hypnosis from watching his videos?

• Is it self identification with martyrdom and the “struggle” narrative?

• Or is it simply ego?

This last point deserves some explanation. If someone attaches themselves to a narrative that elevates them above those who have studied for decades, telling them that they don’t need to know what others have studied because it is “all wrong”; it not only excuses ignorance, the narrative makes people “Feel” like they are smarter because they learned the “real” truth by being told what to think (by someone else, often from watching a video). The “follower” gets an ego reward that puts them on a higher pedestal than academics and doctors but without any of the work. (If one were to put this in the context of 7 sins, this would best fit the sin of pride.)

• Can ego override someone’s ability to observe reality? Consider the following:

  • Ask a Virus Denier to test their belief against the reality of contagion and spread of Genital Herpes, Plantar Warts or Chicken pox. Ask them to do an experiment to prove there’s no virus caused disease, by exposing themselves to Genital Herpes, and Plantar Warts. Does a refusal to observe the disease process, come with an insistence that all the physical manifestations of infectious diseases (the multiplying sores and lesions), are a naturally occurring “detox”?

• Often belief will cloud people’s ability to observe reality. The existence of 3 illnesses completely incongruent with “detoxing” becomes impossible and unfathomable to the trapped mind, and so they are just ignored. This becomes dangerous because once minds are unhinged from truthful observation, people can be manipulated into all manner of atrocity because they “believed” they were doing the right thing based on their “perceptions”.

---

False virus conspiracies vs. a True Academic one

Some “freedom fighters” have accused me of being stuck in the establishment mindset, and unable to think beyond the paradigms of cell biology and medicine that I’ve been taught. Such an accusation, if it came from someone who was witness to the breadth and depth of my thoughts that I’ve written on this substack, might be worth self reflecting upon. But as it stands, such accusations seem to come only from people who haven’t read or understood what I’ve written over the past 2 and a half years. This largely makes me curious about the extent of brainwashing within the “Freedom Community”. One observation I’ve made within the freedom movement is that many spend an incredible amount of time on social media watching videos. This concerns me because video, as a medium, makes people susceptible to hypnosis. As I hinted above, hypnosis is one technique that I suspect the psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman uses extensively. Accusations of that I am “establishment” seem to come from the video “hypnotized” more than anyone else. Sharing my knowledge about viruses, cell biology and living things seems to have little effect when people do not think enough to contemplate whether or not Andrew Kaufman the psychiatrist is telling the truth. Many would rather rather watch hours of video and repent themselves into the playpen of psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman’s thought cage than take the risk of looking outside. (On a side note, I noticed that Dr. Andrew Kaufman has a couple of podcasts on audible and apple that show up as first hits in a search of his name, ‘germ’ and ‘terrain’. Audio is a particularly effective medium for hypnosis and subliminal messaging. When someone has a flood of material on all types of media, I start to wonder what kind of infrastructure is backing him up, and who is paying for it)

---

So What is a Real Conspiracy?

What follows is as much about how I discovered a great conspiracy, as it is about the conspiracy itself. This one is far greater than the “germ versus terrain” narrative that psychiatrist Andrew Kaufman wants people to believe. This conspiracy makes his “story” look like child’s play. Thinking this one through will change the way one looks at all the institutions of higher education.

• Just as in every article on https://danielnagase.substack.com, I emphasize how I discovered the problem and thought it through. Like many of my explorations, this discovery started with a question.

• I hope that people can read this and have yet another example of how to discover what is true and false about the world around them.

• Why is the ability to discover is greater than the discovery itself? Because the process by which a conclusion is made is a higher order than the product. How much higher? Exactly 1 dimension higher by one integral to be exact.

For those who prefer, I also illustrate a process of creation in a video. (Albeit on a different and possibly more controversial topic)

---

The thread that unravels the greatest academic conspiracy of our time starts with the question:

Are there other definitions of “living”?

28 years ago while studying the laws of thermodynamics¹ at McGill, one definition of living came to mind that I have never seen written anywhere:

• With the application of energy, a living entity causes a net decrease in entropy, while in non-living entities the application of energy causes a net increase in entropy.

How did I come to this conclusion?

1. Observing how plants given energy from sunlight decrease the disorder around them. That is, plants take water, soil and air which are all in a relatively high state of “randomness” or “entropy”, and turn it into highly ordered cells that are highly structured down to the molecular level. This degree of entropy is orders of magnitude lower than the starting state.

2. Observation of how sunlight applied to a non-living object such as a plastic chair, eventually causes that plastic, initially in a high state of order as a structured solid, to fade, crumble and turn into dust, which is in a higher state of entropy (disorder) than the initial state of a new plastic chair.

---

Am I postulating that living things defy the second LAW of thermodynamics?

Yes. Exactly.

Why hasn’t any physicist researched this?

(I do not know.)

---

However, from what I remember of the physics department at McGill, physicists don’t typically study biology and vice versa. So when it comes to questioning the fundamental laws of physics, laws that seem to be perfect in the inanimate world, it appears farfetched that any physicist could imagine things would be any different in the animate (or living) world. (I never witnessed anyone in the physics department try to calculate the T delta S (change in entropy) from a cell multiplying - that is transforming a solution of nutrients into a plate full of identical cells.)

However nearly 3 decades ago, as a cell biologist contemplating physics, questioning the second law of thermodynamics was one of the first things I did. The discrepancy between what a physicist questions of nature and what a biologist questions of the world made me question academia itself. Isn’t this all “science”?

I wondered why the sciences are divided into chemistry, biology and physics. With enough knowledge of biology and chemistry, one comes to a realization that all biology IS chemistry. Everything that happens in biology is a chemical reaction, with changes and exchanges of energy between atoms and molecules driving the changes and activities inside living bodies.

But it does not stop there. With enough knowledge of chemistry AND physics, one realizes all chemistry IS physics. Chemical reactions happen because of the magnetic, electrical and physical properties of atoms, electrons, and subatomic phenomena.

So if Biology is Chemistry, and Chemistry is Physics, why are the fields divided to discourage any connection and comprehension across Biology AND Physics? Is there a conspiracy to prevent people from acquiring knowledge of all the sciences as 1 unified field?

If there was such a conspiracy, it would have to date back centuries if not millennia, all the way back to the very founding of the “Academic Institutions” we see today. The very first school, the very first college, the very first university to divide the sciences to prevent a unified knowledge of all the sciences would be the initiator of this grand deception.

This deception, misleading scholars down false paths, has systematically grown and spread across the world using the academic system of school diplomas, college certificates and University Degrees. In fact it seems that the higher the degree, the further the recipient moves into minutiae and away from universal knowledge.

---

An Aside For Physicists:

(Regular readers can skip this)

Years ago when I brought up the living vs non-living contradiction within the second law of thermodynamics to a physicist friend, he found it incredible (not believable) that a foundational law of physics, the second LAW of thermodynamics of all things, was wrong, or at the very best only a half truth. He argued that my plant vs plastic chair example were open systems and he insisted that overall the entropy of the universe increased even though the plant decreased entropy by growing. However, mathematically his argument to explain away this apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t add up. If what he were saying was true, then the plant would have to have some mechanism that increased the entropy outside its environment to make the universe have an increase in entropy to counter the plant’s growth decreasing entropy. This entropy transfer effect would only occur in a plant that was growing and not decaying, and be completely absent in a plastic chair. (I for one have never witnessed any plant with an “entropy beam”)

For physicists who still find a reversal of the law of entropy incomprehensible, I offer this thought exercise:

1. Non-living object such as a rock + energy from sunlight = molecules of silica periodically knocked off the rock by EM radiation causing atomic excitation into non-bonded states. Eventually, the sunlight (electromagnetic radiation) turns the rock into dust after millions of years of exposure. Bright sunlight + inanimate matter = increases in entropy

2. Living object such a a plant + sunlight over millions of years = a whole bunch of plants. (a net reversal of entropy) For a physicist to comprehend how much of a decrease in entropy even a single extra plant causes, they’d have to know just how intricate and ordered every structure and protein is in the plant.

Even if both systems are put into separate sealed closed vessels, where the only input is an equal amount of sunlight to both, the result would be the same. Mathematically when the amount of input is the same for each test vessel, then the input can be cancelled out in an equation, leaving only the observation that one vessel experiences a decrease in entropy while the other experiences an increase.

---

What does this mean?

There is a fundamental difference between the nature of contents in a living vessel versus a non-living one.

Taken to the next level, this means that the second law of thermodynamics isn’t a unidirectional vector where the entropy of the universe inexorably increases with time. If living things and their reversal of entropy over time are taken into account, entropy may actually be an equality.

---

The fundamental definition of “Living” as:

• An entity which increases order (decreases entropy) with energy;

and “Non-Living” as:

• that which decreases order (increases entropy) with the application of energy;

is something I have never seen in any university science textbook.

When the artificial divisions in the fields of science are collapsed, one of the first consequences is a redefinition of what is Alive. This redefines the natural world in a direction modern physics has been led away from for at least a century.

• (Is this division of science into Chemistry, Physics, and Biology for the express purpose of preventing this realization?)

• What is the harm in academics coming to this understanding?

---

Taking the process of reunifying the fields of knowledge even further…

• Is the division of Academia into a faculty of Arts and a faculty of Sciences, also a conspiracy?

• Is it another attempt to compartmentalize knowledge such that people are prevented from attaining complete knowledge?

• Why Art vs Science?

• Is there something dangerous about the study of creativity (art) when combined with the study of nature (science)?

This is for you the reader to think through.²

---

Addendum #1: Mensa for Thought

Why is History in the faculty of Arts?

1. At McGill a BSc. from the faculty of Science requires first year courses in all the sciences, biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics.

2. My suggested path for reader contemplations as to whether all academic institutions are in fact participants in a grand conspiracy against knowledge is as follows: Physics at its root is mathematics. Mathematics taken to its limit becomes philosophy. The faculty of “Arts” is based on creativity, that is study of creations of the past — “Art” — and forms of creation in the present. Science develops the knowledge of matter and the natural world. What possible motive might there be to isolate creativity from the means and mechanics of creating (e.g. science)?