Do Viruses Physically Exist?

aka J. Shannon

After submitting an essay to Proton Magic through direct messaging, it was suggested that I post it on my own newsletter. Proton was kind enough to make a number of observations and suggestions which follow the piece itself, along with some responses I made to those comments. In light of Proton’s comments, a few minor changes were made to the text. Our interchange was cordial and instructive, which I very much appreciated. Any problems in formatting or other textual errors are mine alone.

From a microbiological perspective, I have had difficulty accepting what has historically been posited about viruses. There seem to be several insurmountable problems with the subject as traditionally presented. Here are some of my concerns:

Viruses must either physically exist or not exist as provable/demonstrable, physical entities. That much is a logical necessity. One of the earliest descriptions posited the existence of extremely small (micro) organisms which lacked at least one of the 6 characteristics necessary for something to be considered a living entity. Specifically, the ability to reproduce independently, based upon its own internal bio machinery was said not to be present, yet they were thought to be alive, an obvious contradiction from the start. In 1928, at a Society of American Bacteriology conference, Thomas M. Rivers, who many consider to be the father of modern virology, said for the first time that “viruses appear to be obligate (intracellular) parasites in the sense that their reproduction is dependent on living cells” and since then the need to “grow” viruses in cell culture has been understood to be a necessary requirement. By 1939, the tobacco mosaic virus was reported by Loring and Stanley to be composed of nucleic acid (RNA) and a protein coat (the obvious implication being that these alleged particles were not unicellular living entities that were capable of multiplication and cellular division (growth) based on their own self-contained bio-machinery.

For the sake of further development of this line of reasoning, we should recognize that since viruses (purportedly) must utilize host ribosomes to reproduce [by definition/convention], they do not, strictly speaking, qualify as living things. If that was/is true, and these minute particles actually physically exist, it can be argued that they should not be characterized as infectious/disease producing/living micro-organisms. Such an alleged infectious micro-organism (as originally defined) would ostensibly need to be alive in order to hijack host cell ribosomes for the purpose of creating copies of itself. In order to be contagious/communicable, a living entity (by original definition/convention), must infect another living entity, fail to be neutralized/removed, create a plethora of self-copies and cause illness in the host. Instead of being characterized as infectious/disease producing/living micro-organisms, perhaps these alleged entities should be considered toxic particles of some sort, presuming they are capable of causing disease at all.

It is of note that historically, toxins have not been considered contagious/communicable even though they can cause severe damage to living things and yet they are inert/non-living entities. Contagion/transmission of micro-organisms assumes that they are alive and yet, by definition, viruses, (at least by one important traditional criterion), are not alive. This issue is not relevant with respect to bacteria, fungi, parasites and so forth, because they are able to reproduce independently and possess all six characteristics of living things.

Secondly, the mechanism by which a small piece of nucleic acid containing genetic code (DNA or RNA), encapsulated by a proteinaceous membrane, coat or shell, could redirect the function of a cell (in which it resides temporarily after it is released from its protective encapsulated environment), has not been satisfactorily explained in my estimation. This behavior, if it does occur, is much more like cancer in some respects, than an infectious micro-organism. One must ask what it is that purportedly allows the alleged viral DNA or RNA to highjack/override the machinery of the cell? Thus far, we have raised two significant problems, the alleged microbe is not alive by at least one traditional criterion, and it lacks a plausible mechanism by which to commandeer the activity of the cell in which it purportedly resides.

Third, we have the difficulty of isolating (understood as physically separating it from all other constituents) the alleged virus which is largely due to the fact that it is incapable of reproducing, unless it has access to the host’s intracellular machinery (by original definition/convention). Before the alleged discovery of viruses, to the best of my knowledge/understanding, this was never asserted about any contagious/pathological micro-organism. With respect to alleged viruses, it becomes clear that they could never be isolated while actually reproducing (because a ribosome-containing cell culture must be provided for it to do so). Moreover, whatever particle might be completely isolated after it is finished multiplying/reproducing in cell culture (for example through differential gradient centrifugation) and purified, would, by definition, no longer be replication competent and therefore incapable of causing clinical disease, given that, the theoretical particle cannot reproduce unless it gains access to the intracellular compartment of a host. This is in contradistinction to other so-called infectious micro-organisms that are capable of reproducing and thus multiplying in their hosts, without gaining access to the intracellular compartment. We have a bit of a conundrum in that at virtually every turn we seem stymied (have difficulty proving the physical existence of the alleged virus) based upon the unique characteristics of the alleged (virus) particle, as originally defined/understood.

It may be useful to consider Mycoplasma genitalium (larger than all but the largest alleged viruses), which has historically been considered the smallest bacterium capable of independent existence. A bacterial growth medium without any foreign cellular components will support its growth. This is not the case with "viruses” (despite the fact that some are allegedly of roughly the same size), which purportedly do not grow in non-cellular growth media since there are no ribosomes present. Therefore, it is never really possible to isolate the alleged virus from other cellular/subcellular constituents while it is ostensibly using the ribosomes found in cell culture, to reproduce copies of itself. There is always contamination while the virus is allegedly reproducing. Even if the alleged viral particles could be physically separated completely (isolated) from all other constituents, (a necessary prerequisite to the valid proof of the existence of any micro-organism), those particles are not replication competent once isolated (by original definition). That is to say, on their own, they are sterile and incapable of multiplying if the standard explanation of virology is valid. Ergo, even if a very small particle such as a virus, has a theoretical possibility of physical existence, given the parameters initially selected/described it likely could not be demonstrated/proved to exist (as originally described) in fact/reality.

Fourth, in the case of alleged respiratory viruses which are ostensibly communicated from one person to another through the naso/oropharyngeal route, one must explain how it is that these non-living particles can overcome the copious defenses found in the mucosa of the upper and lower respiratory tracts especially since they cannot reproduce until becoming intracellular. Specifically, if they are not alive, cannot reproduce independently, and would at the least have great difficulty in breaching the innate immune system defenses found in the mucosa of the respiratory tract, they should not be able to infect another living human being, (by convention, contagion generally requires these characteristics/abilities). Recall that it is not the disease itself that is allegedly communicated/transmitted from one person to another, but the physical agent/microbe that is purportedly passed through person to person, close contact. The disease which allegedly results, is the body’s response to the presence of the agent, e.g. inflammatory response etc. What was posited with respect to the nature/existence of viruses, appears increasingly to be a physical if not theoretical impossibility.

The aforementioned anticipates a fifth problem in that it complicates the step/possibility of placing the isolated, purified, particle in a host to see if the disease that was found in the original host (from which the alleged virus was ostensibly obtained, subsequently purified, isolated and properly sequenced/characterized) can be reproduced. This is part of the original so-called Koch’s postulates which describe the methodology that must be used to demonstrate that a proposed microbial agent is contagious and capable of producing disease. At this point then, we have identified five significant problems to overcome, all of which direct our attention back to a difficulty with the original definition (one which increasingly appears to be philosophical [first principles] as much as scientific). Put another way, the original description/definition of viruses was potentially a violation of first principles of being which are basic/fundamental to all reasoning, (A=A, A ≠ non-A etc.).

A sixth problem is that the so-called cytopathic effect (CPE) that virologists claim is proof that a virus caused death of the cell culture in which it allegedly resides, is totally nonspecific. There are many potential reasons why this might occur. If all of those possibilities are not eliminated through testing with appropriate control experiments, there is no proof the virus caused the cytopathic effect. This is another way of saying that the cytopathic effect is a poor endpoint for determining whether an alleged virus is present or whether it is the cause of the death of cells in culture. One must wonder why a more traditional endpoint was not selected, one which is unambiguously definitive for the alleged viral particle in question. For example, after placing what is said to be the target virus in a cell culture, why is it not allowed to grow/reproduce a sufficiently large enough volume of virus particles which can then be isolated from the cell culture itself? Perhaps the answer virologists provide is that the cytopathic effect prevents such an undertaking. If that is the case, then a method should have been developed which would allow for growth of the purported virus in cells containing intact ribosomes but in which no other potentially toxic materials were added and in which widespread death has not yet occurred in the cell culture. Similar questions could be multiplied ad nauseum.

After much thoughtful consideration, I have grave reservations about whether or not the initial and subsequent experiments to prove the existence of these alleged, extremely small micro-organisms (viruses) were ever properly carried out and reproduced by multiple independent researchers. The fact that the extensive FOIA process performed by Canadian researcher, Christine Massey and others has failed to yield an unambiguous example of a detailed/recorded, properly controlled scientific experiment for any virus is extremely damaging as well.

Is it reasonable to think that extremely small, microscopic entities that are incapable of independent existence/reproduction are able to be transmitted from one living being to another or must they be technically alive (possessing all 6 characteristics of living things) in order to be transmissible as is the case with all other kinds of contagious illness? Is it logical to posit that such alleged particles in the case of respiratory viruses could breach the mucosa of the respiratory tract and overcome innate immunity when they are incapable of reproducing until doing so? Should they not be so incapable of mounting a defense against their destruction in that condition as to make their task of establishing a clinical infection insurmountable? Assuming that such particles could gain entry to the intracellular compartment, is it reasonable to think that they could hijack protein synthesis/normal homeostasis? All of this is another way of saying that perhaps the idea of a viral entity as a transmissible/infectious/contagious and disease producing entity (as originally proposed/defined) is untenable.

Some further questions/comments come to mind:

• In a more ontological sense, the question becomes what criteria/features should be accepted as obligatory in order to determine that something is alive? Is it necessary that the entity in question be organic (composed of carbon atoms, with complex chemistry)? Must it obtain energy through the conversion of larger, complex organic compounds into smaller, less complex ones e.g. the citric acid cycle or through anaerobic glycolysis or may it obtain energy in some other manner, for example, from electromagnetic radiation? Are the 6 historical/standard criteria for determining whether something is alive, accurate or complete? If not, what others should be included?

•  Do nanoparticles that are capable of self-assembly into increasingly complex entities qualify as being alive in the traditional sense (possessing all 6 characteristics)? If not, are they really alive or do they only seem to be alive?

• Are non-living toxins contagious (transmissible and disease producing from one living being to another) in the way micro-organisms are thought to be contagious, or must they be of external/environmental origin and gain access to the body without moving from one live (human) body to another live (human) body. For example, is it possible for a non-living toxin to be exhaled into the air from a person in which it has caused toxicity/illness and for another person in close proximity to inhale it and become damaged by the same toxin, presuming that the toxin in question is not already present in the ambient air supply?

• What entities are capable of being “shed” from one living being to another in such a way as to cause physiologic disturbance/abnormalities?

Response by Proton Magic:

“John, you have some VERY good ideas in here. Some concepts that add to your story,

Proton: If viruses can transmit from person to person, that means they can survive outside cells for some period of time, however there is no study finding a virus in sneeze droplets etc., and they are said by virologists to be unable to be found in just a patient sample. So, this is nonsense and just means viruses are a fiction.

John H.: Yes, if viruses, as traditionally defined, could transmit from person to person, it would mean that at least in some sense, they survive outside the intracellular milieu long enough to avoid being destroyed by the body’s innate immune system and taken up by the cells of the respiratory mucosa (why that should be theoretically possible however, is an enigma to me and I would like a proponent of viral theory to answer it in a detailed way. In other words, how does it survive during the time it has no access to intracellular energy stores and why doesn’t the body’s innate immune system eliminate it prior to it being taken up by the cells of the respiratory mucosa?). It might be easier for the sake of this essay, to limit the discussion to alleged respiratory viruses since they must allegedly gain access to the intracellular compartment through the oral and nasopharyngeal route and survive passage through the respiratory tract.

Proton: My point here is the contradiction: how can they not be found in patient fluid, but they are said to travel in droplets from person to person. I suppose virologists will just say “there are not enough of them to isolate.”

John H.: Excellent point. It is at least an apparent contradiction. For the purposes of causing contamination and infection, viruses are credited with amazing capabilities. Yet, for the purpose of proving that they physically exist, we are asked to believe they are very elusive and fastidious. With today’s equipment and technology, it should be possible to find even one such alleged particle in a droplet of expectorated sputum. The fact that this has not been repeatedly demonstrated is extremely suspicious and strongly implies that these almost magical particles do not physical exist.

Proton: The main problem with CPE (cytopathic effect) is that CPE occurs and makes virus looking particles without patient sample-you saw Jamie’s research the other day and I made a post “Viruses by Fiat” the other day. So, this is another nail in the coffin of CPE as any kind of valid test.

John H.: Yes, that is devastating.

Proton: The part about isolation from a cell culture though has issues because if viruses did exist the cell culture is the same thing as a patient sample (cells, fluid, debris, viruses) and a particle could theoretically be purified (confirmed on EM (electron microscopy) to be only that particle) then characterized from the centrifuge pellet, and since virus story says they can transmit in droplets without ribosomes they should be purifiable and replication competent in another host.

John H.: I think I understand what you are saying but let me be sure. This may be a bit picky, but it seems to me that a viral cell culture while similar to a specimen/sample derived from a symptomatic/ill patient is dissimilar in possibly significant ways. There are no antibiotics or antifungal agents in a patient sample or presumably in the patient prior to obtaining it. There is no bovine calf serum or non-human cells. All or many of these are usually present in viral cell cultures however, which introduces multiple variables not present in a patient sample/specimen. I agree that the alleged particle could theoretically be purified and confirmed by EM to be that particle and subsequently characterized if it was really present. I think you make an excellent point when you say that should this be possible/proven (my understanding is that it never has been but, if I am wrong, please advise), it is reasonable to think that such a particle, if placed in another host, would be replication competent (that is, theoretically, but apparently it is not physically possible because all attempts have failed. One must assume that if it was, those engaged in this activity would have found a successful method after all this time). This brings us back to the argument I made in the essay which is that it may not even be theoretically possible, given the limitations of what virologists’ claim are the characteristics of viruses. I would like to hear your response/opinion about the latter point.

Proton: Correct. The point would be that if a virus can cause CPE it means it is replicating and so it should be easy to purify but it has never been done so, it is another contradiction that is best answered that there is no virus. Jamie’s exp also adds to Lanka that shows CPE is an invalid endpoint. All cell culture experiments should just be ditched.

Proton continued: Since they are not found, we don’t have to worry about any “they” being replication competent or not, since they don’t exist. So, you might get some flak or confusion about this section if you make it public. BTW, ribosomes seem to be theoretical, but you should just stay in the standard model for this essay.

John H.: Agreed, it is the basic tenant of modern cell biology that proteins are assembled from amino acids in ribosomes based on information stored in DNA. I would prefer to say there is no valid proof that viruses physically exist, and I strongly suspect that they cannot exist as defined, even theoretically. With respect to potential flack, it might suffice to add your comment above and my response to the post or include these interchanges so as to satisfy others that we have thought about the implications. I’m eager to hear your opinion.

Proton: FOIs support the research that never actually finds a virus. FOIs are not finding any new info (just to add).

John H.: It is stunning, nonetheless.

Proton: It’s even more stunning how many people are not the least stunned!

Not being “living” may not be enough to deny transmission of biological material. Exosomes could transmit cell signals, but they are not living entities themselves, they just need to survive long enough to transmit.

John H.: This raises several interesting points. Even if some kinds of biological material can be transmitted from one living thing to another, it does not mean it is illness/disease producing. My understanding is that exosomes as intracellular detritus, are not infectious/contagious and disease-producing in the accepted sense of the terms. I don’t actually know if exosomes can be transmitted intact from one living thing to another. Do you know if anyone has tried to prove it? I suppose an exosome could remain physically intact long enough to be transmitted from one living thing to another but, if so, does it cause illness or disease? In other words, what is actually known about that?

Proton: Chemicals CAN be transmitted. If you drink a glass of bleach, you will cough and sneeze I promise, and others around you, especially if you are indoors, will get sick. But bleach is not living surely.

Sorry idk, I’m not really up on the literature on this (transmission of exosomes), but I have heard, and also think that it is theoretically possible. Sorry, I haven’t done any deep dives on it but encourage you. The only thing is it is probably better to break up any post into multiple posts the more topics you want to cover, you don’t want to tire the readers.

John H.: I did not know that. I have never ingested bleach, so I have no practical experience with what you describe. It seems surprising that others would get sick in close proximity unless you were in a very small, enclosed space. Assuming that to be the case though, is it not because in such a small space, the ambient air supply now includes the fumes of the bleach which others begin to inhale, rather than that there is direct transmission from you to them? Admittedly, it might be difficult to answer without performing some empirical studies and few would likely agree to partake.

Proton continued: The alive or not question is really somewhat separate from the virus question but still interesting. The "alive" thing is a people decided definition, not a clear-cut yes or no for some things (spores? IDK).

John H.: This is very intriguing to me. It is true that biologists determined many years ago how they would differentiate living from non-living things by carefully considering all the similarities and differences. The spore example is very interesting, and I will have to think about it a great deal more. Currently, I don’t have a response. In any, case, I raised this issue for multiple reasons. The existence of viruses as defined, suspect in my mind because they appear to be able to create life from that which is not living (by at least one important criterion). It seems to be the only example where this is alleged, but I may be wrong about that. Another reason for raising it is because the Materials Science literature is full of examples of nanoparticulates being able to self-organize and even seem to self-assemble/propagate (mimic being alive) despite not being alive by historical criteria. Admittedly, this gets into a discussion of the nature of synthetic biology, genetic engineering and xenobiology which is beyond the scope of this essay.

Proton: This is interesting but too much to include in a virus post. Alive or not, we can evaluate the literature on how they have never found a virus.

John H.: Agreed and indeed it is important to evaluate the extant literature in the public record.