This is getting old Jillian

 Once again Jillian demonstrates she:

1] doesn't read past the headline or title of her citation

2] she doesn't understand what she reads

3] she makes shit up throwing about science-y sounding words

Viruses mutate when they leave their HOST 
What the article states,

Mutations arise by one of three mechanisms: (1) by the effects of physical mutagens (UV light, x-rays) on nucleic acids; (2) by the natural behavior of the bases that make up nucleic acids (resonance from keto to enol and from amino to imino forms), and (3) through the fallibility of the enzymes that replicate the nucleic acids. 

The article then goes on to describe various types of mutations that may occur. 

Jillian please cite the passage your word salad is referring to. Show your work as there is no mention of such occurring.

because the body/host/bacteriophage/mycovirus is trying to get rid of excess

What are you referring to? A body, a host, a bacteriophage, a mycovirus are not equivalent nor related. All have very distinct meanings.

Get rid of excess what?

AKA BEING COMMUNICABLE

Please explain communicability? As you obviously have ne fucking clue what it means or implies.

On a Jan 24^th video you state, “When someone is communicable, they are actually giving away the best part of themselves.” And again on the 25^th you state, “Those loyal to JJ doing Jj can afford to be communicable ,,,” Both statements imply that being communicable is a good thing.

Yet, not even a week later, you state this, “Whether it's a flu or the Coronavirus the stuff is going around and so I know the possibility when you have so many weak people in a nation in crowded communities picking up on a very communicable disease it's not going to be pretty once it takes a foothold.”

So which is it – good or bad?  You contradict yourself within 7 days.

If you are asymptomatic you are less communicable. If you are symptomatic you are more communicable

False

1] This article, which is part of a textbook, was published in 1996; 24 years previous to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

2] While the information may still be relevant, it does not address COVID-19. It does not address, communicability nor whether one is more of a threat if asymptomatic v symptomatic.

3] A simple search would demonstrate you premise faulty and dangerous.

The advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and other reputable agencies on how to protect yourself from coronavirus is simple: wash your hands frequently, don't share personal items, and try to keep your distance from those who are showing symptoms. But now, new research and anecdotal evidence shows that even those without symptoms may be able to transmit the coronavirus.

While it's still unclear exactly how much of the current coronavirus outbreak has been fueled by asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, or pre-symptomatic people, the risk is there, Nate Favini, MD, medical lead of Forward, tells Health. That's because people who are asymptomatic can still spread the virus and have high levels of the virus in their respiratory secretions, he says—something that is apparent from the rapid spread of the coronavirus. "Given the rapidity of the spread of COVID-19, it seems plausible that people who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic could be playing a role in spreading the virus," he says.

If your intention is trying to kill a virus and you're the host what do you think your methodology is doing

A Wee bit of semantics. You can not “kill” something that is not alive to begin with. But a virus can kill a host cell. The causes of death include cell lysis, alterations to the cell's surface membrane and various modes of programmed cell death.

What one is trying to accomplish, a disruption of the outer shell to break apart the DNA/RNA. Why hand washing is important as the proteins within soap will break apart the shell. Similar applies with vaccines, you are taking in small bits the immune system gets to recognize and remember when the live virus comes along.

Your statement makes no sense and is also not addressed by the article you cite.

you're essentially destroying yourself because you're the host. Now you have to strengthen your body to handle the data from the virus. Which means you have to strengthen your immune system and strengthen the weak cellsThere is no such thing as “boosting” your immune system.

And here we go again. The interwebs are filled with quacks trying to claim that they have something for boosting immunity to protect oneself from COVID-19. Of course, once you read that someone has the magical potion for boosting immunity, you can almost guarantee that it’s pseudoscience and woo.

Boosting immunity is always the go-to for scam artists whenever there is a deadly outbreak or pandemic like we are seeing now. The pseudoscience of the immune system is pernicious and possibly dangerous.

The problem with these immune system myths is that they overlook or ignore a basic physiological fact – the immune system is a complex interconnected network of organs, cells, and molecules that prevent the invasion of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pathogens and other antigens every single day.

And no matter how much individuals try to trivialize the complexity of the immune system, it does not make it so. If it were easy as downing a handful of supplements or the magical blueberry-kale smoothie for boosting immunity to coronavirus or any disease, every physician in the world would prescribe.

Unfortunately, even if we could boost our immunity, we shouldn’t – a hyperactive immune system is frequently dangerous to an individual.

Yeah, the pseudoscience crowd doesn’t know their immune system.

End of story!!