>Why would we assume that the reprogramming of cells would be
>beneficial to the host?  The virus doesn't care.  As long as some subset
>of the virus has a means of jumping from one host to another, it wouldn't
>matter if it killed or helped the host for the species to survive.  Why does
>the body madly produce antibodies against many viruses if they are so
>helpful?  Seems to me like some viruses help, some harm, and most do
>neither.  I have always been baffled by the beneficial microbe theory.  Is
>it necessary for me to read Guy-Claude to understand this?

There are quite a few ailments, such as German measles, that once
you've had it you're immune to it.  Because I've had malaria I'm
probably immune to it.  If so, my immune system is stronger and
I've benefited.

Maybe phase 1 is for the antibodies to deal with the immediate threat,
and phase 2 is for the cells to be reprogrammed.

Nietzsche said, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

Consider what happened to the native Americans when they came into
contact with the European invaders.

I'm fortunate to have lived in many places in three continents
so I've been exposed to a wide variety of "bugs."

Maybe:
1. Some bugs are so strong that they overwhelm the victim, and
kill or permanently damage him or her;
2. Some bugs cause short-term harm but long-term benefits;
3. Some bugs are completely neutral;
4. Some bugs cause only harm;
5. Some bugs cause only benefits.

Reading Guy-Claude will probably improve understanding.

Apparently E-bola, a supposedly "deadly virus" kills 90%
of its victims.  The 10% survivors must have strong immune
systems.  This may indicate that, for someone with an
uncompromised immune system, E-bola would be a relatively
minor irrition for a short period followed by a strengthening
of the immune system.

Regards,

Frederick Mann