What If Flu Season Is the Body’s Emergency Reset?

Written by Sayer Ji on January 8, 2026. Posted in Current News

Seasonal influenza is still interpreted through a framework that modern biology has already outgrown

Within that framework, symptoms such as fever, fatigue, inflammation, and withdrawal are treated as signs of pathological failure.

Yet mounting evidence suggests these same responses may represent the body’s most powerful mechanisms of preservation, detoxification, and systemic reset—processes that keep the organism alive rather than threaten it.

Every winter, a familiar story is broadcast with industrial confidence:

A virus is “circulating.”
You are “exposed.”
Exposure becomes an “infection.”
“Infection” becomes symptoms.
Symptoms become a problem to suppress—ideally prevented by a pharmaceutical product.

And yet, lived physiology keeps interrupting the narrative.

People who push themselves through brutally intense training sessions—hard HIIT intervals, hill sprints, long heat-soaked workouts—often report a transient constellation of “flu-like” symptoms: profuse sweating, nausea, chills, trembling, headache, malaise, a sense of impending doom.

Then, if they recover well, the aftermath is the opposite of illness: clarity, appetite normalization, mood elevation, sleep depth, and the unmistakable feeling that something has been cleaned out and rebuilt.¹³¹⁴I describe surviving this “near death” exertion a regenerative wave, which for me can last for over 24 hours.

And this phenomenon you really have to live to truly understand, is a profound clue.

Because if “flu symptoms” can be produced—on demand—by voluntary, controlled stress (heat, exertion, metabolic intensity), then a serious scientific question follows:

What if seasonal influenza-like illness is not only a story about contagion, but also a story about the body being forced into a belated, involuntary restoration cycle—because the daily inputs that once maintained resilience (light, thermic contrast, movement variability, microbial contact) and provided the substrate for metabolic and immunological self-regulation — for countless millennia — have been flattened or completed disappeared by modern life?

This article, while questioning several foundational assumptions of classical virology, is not an exercise in denial. Rather, it represents an effort to move beyond a one-dimensional, pathogen-centric interpretation of disease—one that has proven insufficient to explain mounting biological complexity.

That narrow framing has, perhaps too conveniently, supported both the continual expansion of vaccine schedules falsely and irresponsibly promoted as unequivocally “safe and effective,” and the recurring, seasonal cycle of media- and medicine-amplified fear, in which invisible particles are portrayed as the primary threats to human health, demanding passive vigilance rather than deeper inquiry into terrain, resilience, and causation.

What follows is an evidence-based “terrain-first” investigation built from three converging revolutions:

1. The holobiont revolution (microbiome + virome): we are ecosystems, not sealed individuals.¹⁶¹⁷¹⁸
2. The extracellular vesicle revolution (exosomes): biology moves information through virus-sized packages that look, behave, and sometimes blur into what we call “viruses.”²³⁴
3. The chronobiology + environmental physiology revolution: immunity is rhythmic, seasonal, and deeply dependent on light, temperature, humidity, sleep timing, and metabolic conditioning.²¹²⁸

Layer these together, and influenza becomes more than a villain. It becomes a pattern—and possibly, in many cases, a program for physiological resilience, without which perhaps our body would succumb to forces of degeneration and fragility.

Exhibit A: You are not an individual—at least not in the way medicine was trained to imagine

If the last century of medicine taught a cultural mantra—“You are you, and microbes are outsiders”—the microbiome shattered it.

A modern human is better described as a holobiont: a host plus a vast constellation of microbial life that participates in digestion, immune education, barrier maintenance, neurotransmitter metabolism, and even circadian signaling.¹⁷¹⁸²⁰

Even the numbers are psychologically destabilizing:

• Updated quantitative estimates place bacterial cells in the body on the same order of magnitude as human cells—roughly comparable totals, not a trivial minority.¹⁸
• The “self” you defend is genetically entangled with ancient viral history: a substantial portion of the human genome derives from sequences with similarity to retroviruses (endogenous retroviruses), representing a deep blur between “viral” and “human” at the level of inheritance.¹⁹

If your immune system is defending (and/or an extension of) an ecosystem—rather than a sterile fortress—then “infection” becomes less like invasion and more like ecological rebalancing: shifts in signaling, tolerance, barrier function, and microbial community dynamics.

This is not abstract philosophy. It changes the meaning of influenza-like disease.

Because in a holobiont frame, what matters is not merely “Did something enter?” but:

• What state is the terrain in? (nutrient sufficiency, sleep, stress and toxicant load, metabolic flexibility)
• What is the timing? (circadian gating of immune responses)²⁸
• What environmental constraints are present? (UVB deprivation, indoor dryness, cold monotony, reduced thermic hormesis)²¹
• What communication is occurring between cells? (extracellular vesicles, interferon programs, inflammatory myokines)³¹³

In other words, the body is not passively responding, but orchestrating a system-level process. Viruses, as obligate parasites, lack autonomous agency and cannot traverse biological space without being produced, packaged, and trafficked by host cells themselves.

From this perspective, viral particles may frequently function as informational artifacts of host biology—signals embedded in cellular stress, repair, or adaptation pathways—rather than singular causal agents acting upon a helpless organism.

Exhibit B: The influenza “virus” is not purely “other”—it is built with “self”

Here is the single study that should permanently complicate simplistic “invader” metaphors.

A landmark proteomic analysis of influenza virions found that influenza particles maintain a conserved architecture across host/virus combinations—and that this “core” includes substantial quantities of host proteins, elaborated by abundant host-dependent features.

The result: virions produced by mammalian and avian hosts show distinct protein compositions.¹

This is not a fringe claim. It is a direct experimental observation: influenza virions are materially hybrid—assembled through host machinery, incorporating host components.

Two implications matter for a newcomer trying to understand why an alternative view of viral particles can even exist:

1. “Virus” is not a neatly separable object like a bullet. It is more like a process—a replication/assembly logic that runs through host cellular pathways.
2. The boundary between virion and endogenous vesicle traffic is conceptually thin. If a particle’s membrane and protein cargo are strongly host-shaped—and if its size overlaps with endogenous communication vesicles—then confusion between “self-messaging” and “pathogen particle” is not insane; it is biologically plausible.²

This does not imply that influenza cannot be infectious. It requires, instead, a clarification of what we mean by infection. If infection is understood as the transfer of biologically meaningful information from one organism to another, then it is not inherently pathological.

On the contrary, such exchanges are fundamental to communication, coordination, and adaptation across individuals, populations, and even species. Within this frame, the “infectious particle” occupies a continuum with endogenous signaling particles, and immune activation may be driven as much by patterns of distress signaling, barrier disruption, and inflammatory coordination as by simple molecular foreignness.

Once this distinction is recognized, influenza-like illness no longer appears as a biological war, but as a system-level orchestration.

Exhibit C: The exosome revolution—why a layperson is right to be confused

For most of medical history, only one kind of cell-to-cell communication felt “real”:

• hormones in blood,
• nerves firing,
• cytokines as emergency flares.

But cells also communicate by shipping membrane-bound packages loaded with proteins, receptors, lipids, and genetic material (RNA). These are broadly called extracellular vesicles (EVs); a prominent subclass are exosomes.³

Exosomes matter here because they collide with virology at multiple levels:

• They can be virus-sized.
• They can carry nucleic acids and proteins that alter recipient cell behavior.³
• Viruses can exploit EV biogenesis pathways; this is explicitly discussed in the literature (e.g., the “Trojan exosome hypothesis” for retroviruses).⁴
• Scholarly reviews analyze the overlap directly: extracellular vesicles and viruses can be considered “close relatives” in formation pathways, composition, and functional mimicry.²

A person new to this terrain asks a fair question:

If cells naturally release virus-sized, genome-carrying vesicles—and viruses can use similar pathways—how clean is the practical distinction between “virus particle” and “communication particle,” especially in complex tissues under stress?

This is not a rhetorical loophole. It is one of the reasons modern virology increasingly discusses “viral infection” as an interplay of:

• classical virions,
• defective particles,
• EVs carrying viral cargo,
• EVs shaping immune responses,
• and host-derived vesicles that can look “viral” by appearance or molecular signature.²⁶

Now add an additional observation: tissue injury can export its state through exosomes. In a striking experimental model of acetaminophen-induced liver injury, researchers investigated whether exogenous exosomes from injured mice could promote hepatotoxicity in recipients.⁵

Whether one interprets that finding as “toxicity messaging,” “damage-associated signaling,” or “exosomal programming,” the core point remains:

The body can transmit a disease-like state without requiring a living microbe to reproduce inside the recipient.

That mechanism—toxicant-induced state transfer—is central to why a “poisoned/not infected” reframe attracts attention. It offers a vocabulary for phenomena that look contagious, feel contagious, and cluster like contagion—yet may be substantially driven by shared exposures and shared signaling.

Exhibit D: “Poisoned Not Infected” as a model—what it claims, and what it attempts to explain

In the Poisoned Not Infected framework, the argument is not that pathogens are imaginary. The argument is that modern medicine often commits a category error:

It takes a complex systemic response (detoxification + repair + immune coordination + rhythmic resetting) and collapses it into a single word—infection—as if naming the event were explaining it.

Across the series, the proposed reframing is essentially this:

• Many “viral syndromes” may be terrain crises: the body forced into emergency cleanup and adaptive signaling (even vaccines can induce such a crisis, effectively generating pseudoinfection and pseudocontagion)
• Viral particles (or viral-like particles) may be part of information transfer in that response—sometimes as classical infection, sometimes as vesicle-mediated pattern propagation, sometimes as endogenous outputs that are misread as external attack.
• The absence of daily ancestral inputs (thermic cycling, UVB, circadian stability, microbial richness) may create a pressure gradient that discharges seasonally, episodically, and dramatically—what we call “the flu.”³²³³

From a mainstream lens, some of these claims are speculative, some are provocative, and some are best read as hypothesis-generating rather than settled. But as an investigative project, the series is valuable because it insists on questions modern flu discourse prefers to skip:

• Why do influenza-like epidemics correlate so tightly with seasonal environmental variables (humidity, temperature behavior, indoor crowding, UVB deprivation)?²¹
• Why do symptoms often resemble a coordinated, metabolically expensive program—fever, anorexia, somnolence, myalgia—that looks designed, not accidental?⁶⁷
• Why do interventions that restore ancestral stressors (movement intensity, heat exposure, thermic contrast) often correlate with profoundly reduced chronic disease and mortality—and sometimes reduced respiratory disease outcomes as well?⁸⁹¹¹

The “xenogen” inspiration in the model is, in effect, a modernized terrain theory that preserves an essential caveat:

Information transfer is real. Not all information is neutral or positive; some is dys-information (disease-promoting)

Essentially, biology is not only chemistry; it is messaging.

The dispute is not “does information move?” It is “how often do we mistake messaging and cleanup for invasion?”

Exhibit E: COVID as the stress test—why the argument expands beyond influenza

Influenza is the gateway; COVID is the accelerator.

The reason is simple: COVID pushed diagnostic technologies (especially PCR) into the center of public identity and fear, turning molecular detection into a social verdict.

Here is the important, mainstream-compatible clarification that most people never received:

PCR detects genetic material; it does not, by itself, prove the presence of live, replication-competent virus.

Clinical context matters. Viral culture, antigen tests, symptom timing, and epidemiology matter.

Once you accept that, two parallel truths can coexist without contradiction:

• SARS‑CoV‑2 is supported as a real infectious agent by multiple lines of evidence (not just PCR).
• PCR positivity can sometimes reflect residual fragments or low-level signals that do not map neatly onto “you are infected in the way you imagine infection.”

The Poisoned Not Infected series uses COVID as a case study to argue that exosomes, fragments, and host-derived nucleic acids may inflate the conceptual certainty people place on molecular signals—and that this can distort both policy and personal fear.³²³³

Whatever one’s position, the key investigative value is that it forces differentiation between:

• post-infectious syndromes,
• post-vaccination adverse events,
• and broader dysautonomia/inflammatory states that can be triggered by multiple upstream stressors.

A responsible synthesis acknowledges that long COVID is observed in unvaccinated people as well, and that many studies suggest vaccination reduces long COVID risk on average—while still leaving room for legitimate scientific work on adverse events and heterogeneity of outcomes.

The deeper point for influenza: once you see how “one label” can hide multiple mechanisms, you stop assuming the seasonal flu is a single mechanism event.

See more here substack.com

Header image: Getty Images

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method