楓之谷堡壘

喪屍病毒 神奇生命 殭屍病毒

前言：

我在巧合下對殭屍產生好奇，因此上各國的網站查詢有觀殭屍和索拉難病毒的資料，但我偶然發現各個國家對這事一直採用封鎖的方式，但我還是找到許多資料，甚至還去購買〈世界末日 求生指南〉一書來看，並且用書上提出的事件，找了許多的資料影片，原本半性半疑的我，現在也相性了，我將整理出最完整的殭屍資料。

「打鬼戰士: 世界末日求生指南 」這本書有說，這種駭人病毒

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

「索拉難」這種病毒進入人體之後，透過血液直奔腦部。它利用大腦前頁的細胞來達到自身增生的目的，但途徑迄今還不是很清楚。「索拉難」一面增生，一面摧毀腦細胞，讓身體機能停止，最後心跳也沒了，使得受到感染的這個客體呈現「死亡」的狀態。腦部雖然還算活著，也已經呈現休眠，而「索拉難」病毒則將腦部突變成為新器官。這個新器官最大的特色就是不必倚靠氧氣而存活，因此腦部的新器官可以指揮全身，又不受到氧份的限制。

突變完成之後，腦部的新器官重新啟動全身，此時這個人的身體與以前大不相同，可是有些身體功能還在，有些部分則經過改造，還有些功能完全消失。這個全新的有機體就是殭屍，也就是活死人。

1.「索拉難」的誕生：
很不幸的是，現在還搞不太清楚自然界當中「索拉難」的存在狀況。全球各地生態系統當中的水體、氣體、土壤裡面，對於「索拉難」都呈現陰性反應（沒有索拉難），植物、動物當中也檢驗不出「索拉難」的存在。到本書出版的時候，科學界依舊努力尋找「索拉難」。

2.症狀：
以下的時間表顯示人類受感染之後的變化個體的差異，而有幾個小時的誤差。

第一小時：感染部位疼痛，臉色大變（變紫色，變褐色）。傷口（如果是由傷口感染的話）腫大。

第五小時：高燒（攝氏四十度以上）。畏寒。略呈白癡狀。嘔吐。關節劇烈疼痛。

第八小時：高燒持續不退，感染部位以及四肢麻痺。癡呆狀態加劇。肌肉協調失
效。

第十一小時：下肢癱瘓，全身僵直，心跳速度減緩。

第十六小時：昏迷。

第二十小時：心跳停止，腦波是平的。

第二十三小時：身體重新啟動。

3.感染途徑：
「索拉難」病毒具有百分之百的傳染性，百分之百的致命性。對人類來說，幸運的是目前還未發現藉由空氣、飲水傳染的案例，與大自然接觸並不會導致「索拉難」感染。只有透過直接的體液交換，才會感染「索拉難」。最廣為人知的感染方式就是被殭屍噬咬，但這並非單一的感染途徑；曾經出現的感染前例包含自己的傷口與殭屍的傷口接觸，或在爆炸中被殭屍的肢體殘液噴到。如果直接食入受感染的肉品或液體，並不會造成感染（除非嘴裡有傷口），反而會直接斃命，永遠斃命，不會變成殭屍。受感染的人肉具有高度毒性。
歷史上、科學實驗上、民俗傳說裡、口述歷史中並未曾出現「與殭屍嘿咻之後會怎樣」的記載。但前文記載可以推知，從「索拉難」的生物特性來判斷，與殭屍嘿咻的話，則被感染的機率極高。我們在此並不想呼籲大家「不要與殭屍嘿咻」，因為真正敢這樣的人，一定是非常奇怪的人，可能並不在乎要如何保護自己的人身安全。或許有人會爭辯說，殭屍的體液呈現十分凝固的狀態，所以與殭屍的「非噬咬性接觸」並不會受到感染。不過請注意，只要單一的一個微生物就足以啟動整個惡性循環了。

4.跨物種感染：
「索拉難」可以感染一切的活物，無分大小、物種或生態系。但迄今只有人類才會出現「僵掉的身體重新啟動」之狀況。研究顯示，人類以外的生物被「索拉難」感染之後，會在短時期內死亡。宿主一死，連帶使得寄生的「索拉難」也活不下去了，所以這些生物的屍體並不具有危險。宿主死亡的時間很快，「索拉難」還來不及增生，宿主就掛了。蚊蟲咬傷也不會造成感染。實驗證明，蚊蟲具有判別的能力，只要生物已經感染「索拉難」，蚊蟲就不會咬它。

5.治療方式：
人類受感染之後，通常就沒救了。「索拉難」是病毒，不是細菌，所以抗生素沒用。對抗病毒的唯一方式為預防接種，但在「索拉難」的案例中也沒用，因為即使只在身體內注入一點點的病毒，也會立即造成全面性的感染。目前科學家正在進行基因研究，內容包含提升人類抗體以抵抗細胞結構的變化，以及製造出全新的反式病毒，讓反式病毒在體內辨識、殲滅「索拉難」病毒。不過這些方法都還在初步階段，短時期內不會成功。有人從實戰經驗當中發展出另一種治療方式，就是將感染部位立即截除，可是這種療法的效果還待確認，目前的成功率不及百分之十。通常而言，「索拉難」病毒一旦進入人體系統，則患者就算完蛋了。若受感染的個體選擇自殺了結殘生，則必須確保所選用的自殺方式可以先將腦部殺死。實務經驗顯示，受感染的個體若選用「未將腦部完全炸掉」的方式自殺，則依舊會變成殭屍。這種情況經常出現在感染後第五個小時內的自殺狀況。無論如何，被殭屍噬咬或者受感染之後的個體若死亡，則遺體必須立即處理。

6.殭屍復活：
有人以為，若將「索拉難」病毒注入新鮮人屍，則可使屍體復活變殭屍。這種看法完全錯誤。殭屍不喜歡吃死屍，所以死屍不能傳遞病毒。第二次世界大戰前後��進行的實驗顯示，將「索拉難」病毒注入屍體之後，不會發生任何事，因為屍體的血液停止流動，無法將「索拉難」傳送到腦部。若將「索拉難」直接注射進入屍體的腦部，也沒什麼用，因為腦細胞已死，無法與「索拉難」互動。簡言之，「索拉難」不能製造生命，「索拉難」只能改變生命狀態

國外發現埃及有殭屍的跡象，這和〈世界末日 求生指南〉238頁所術說完全吻合，我會翻譯部分文章

請往下看

Weighing the evidence for and dating of Solanum virus outbreaks in early Egypt

This nondescript tomb (center) may be the location where the first historical evidence of a zombie attack was discovered. (Courtesy of the Hierakonpolis Expedition)

索拉難病毒，考古學家在埃及古文明發現，曾爆發殭屍攻擊人類的事件，有壁畫的證據。

Hierakonpolis is a site famous for its many "firsts," so many, in fact, it is not easy to keep track of them all. So we are grateful(?) to Max Brooks for bringing to our attention that the site can also claim the title to the earliest recorded zombie attack in history. In his magisterial tome, The Zombie Survival Guide (2003), he informs us that in 1892, a British dig at Hierakonpolis unearthed a nondescript tomb containing a partially decomposed body, whose brain had been infected with the virus (Solanum) that turns people into zombies. In addition, thousands of scratch marks adorned every surface of the tomb, as if the corpse had tried to claw its way out! [Editor's note: click here for an interview with Max Brooks and a timeline of archaeologically documented zombie outbreaks.]

With the records available to us (Mr. Brooks obviously has access to others), the British dig can be identified as that conducted by Mssr. Somers Clarke and J.J. Tylor, during which they cleared the decorated tombs of Ny-ankh-pepy (Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom) and Horemkhawef (Second Intermediate Period) on Old Kingdom hill. The notes of Tylor are lost to us, but Clarke's are preserved in the Griffith Institute, Oxford. Unusually cryptic in his discussion, he makes no mention of such a momentous discovery. Thus we can only infer that the tomb in question is one of those in the adjoining courtyard, and just a short distance from the underground chamber we examined in 2006 (see Hierakonpolis 2006: Adventures Underground). The tomb in question may indeed be the one we use a cozy and sheltered spot to take our lunch while working on the Fort, as its plastered, but unpainted walls are indeed covered with innumerable scratch marks that defy photography. If is the case, we might quibble--purely for the sake of scientific accuracy--that the 3000 B.C. date ascribed for the attack should be revised downward to the Old Kingdom, but its premier historical position remains unaffected. [Editor's note: this proposed re-dating, if accepted, necessitates a revision of Brooks's zombie-attack timeline.]

從壁畫可發��〈世界末日求生指南〉一書中提到要砍掉殭屍的頭，英國的開掘在出土一個墳墓裡面有部份地腐爛的屍體, 腦子被索拉難病毒感染，頭還被砍斷。

Decapitated bodies on the front of the Narmer palette: overview shows Narmer, at left, with catfish and chisel motifs at top center. See detail of decapitated bodies. (Courtesy of the Hierakonpolis Expedition)

On the other hand, in support of the earlier date, some have claimed that the famous Palette of Narmer (ca. 3000 B.C.), also from Hierakonpolis, far from recording a victory in the war of unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, is instead a celebration of the successful repulse of a zombie attack. Although we tend to focus on the verso where the king is shown smiting a kneeling enemy, it is the other side that is actually the front. It is the side with the depression for mixing the cosmetics for adorning the cult statue, and so it would seem that the scene of the king marching in procession to view a pile of decapitated bodies is the really important message. Nevertheless, while this scene may be evidence for zombie activity, reliance solely on pictorial records for such claims is scientifically questionable at best. There may be more to this in that Narmer's name means catfish-chisel, which sounds strange, and a catfish and chisel appear on the palette. But this could make sense if the palette refers to a victory over zombie forces. Perhaps Narmer wielded a large Nile catfish, Clarias?, grasping the tail and using it as a sort of black jack to stun the zombies, then removed their heads with a chisel. While it is an attractive idea, no serious archaeologist would hang their fedora on it without further evidence.

Recent work at Hierakonpolis has, however, revealed compelling evidence that zombies may have been problematic already in Predynastic Egypt (ca. 3500 B.C.). Because this work has been undertaken with the most modern techniques, there is also the potential to uncover the hard scientific facts to illuminate the matter fully.

Headless at Hierakonpolis. Left is one of several Predynastic graves from cemetery HK43 where the head is missing but the rest of the burial is intact including several lovely grave goods. (Burial 165) These beads were found around the neck, but the head was gone. (Courtesy of the Hierakonpolis Expedition)

From the very beginning of Predynastic research, Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie reported several headless, but seemingly intact, burials during his famous excavations at Naqada in 1895. Furth
本文引用自: http://todo.pixnet.net/blog/post/27152483
楓之谷橘子官網