Chapter 6: Addressing "No-Virus"
From the book 'The True Nature of Viruses and Their Cause'
The True Nature of Viruses and Their Cause (New Edition), Jeff Green - Amazon.com
Chapter 6: Addressing “No-Virus”
The Scientific Method in Question
There is a clique of people, often referred to as the "No-Virus" group, that argue for absolute purity of samples and adhere to strict definitions of "isolation" and "purity." According to their perspective, if viruses are not completely isolated, purified, and demonstrated to cause disease, they cannot be considered to exist or be observable or determinable.
There has been much hinging upon the phrase 'scientific method' in the "No-Virus" group. Their claim is that the term 'scientific method’ is a strict set of rules which researchers must follow. If these rules are not followed in the way the "No-Virus" group proclaims they must be, then they deem researchers as having not met the 'scientific method', and is called pseudoscience. But, what actually is the scientific method? Is it a set of rules, or something else entirely?
I will now provide a few quotes from a few prominent "No-Virus" group members to establish their beliefs as a whole.
Below, you will also come across the term 'valid controls'. In actuality, the term 'mock infection' is the phrase used for a 'control study'. Therefore, controls are indeed used in most viral studies, just not under the exact terminology the "No-Virus" group desires. Of course, the "No-Virus" group is not satisfied no matter what researchers do, and has found fault with the term 'mock infection' to stay congruent with their past statements in error that no controls exist in modern studies.
Statements made by prominent "No-Virus" members:
“The steps of the scientific method are quite strict, yet simple, for a very good reason.”
“All that's necessary to show that virology is not a science it to point out the lack of scientific method in their papers.”
"...none of the virology studies adhere to the scientific method and are by definition pseudoscience."
"The collection of data does not replace the requirement for evidence that adheres to the scientific method which requires a valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated particles) in order to determine cause and effect."
"It is time to perform the proper scientific experiments which adhere to the scientific method with valid controls. This is the only way this gets settled."
"In order to be considered science, the field in question must adhere to the scientific method. If it does not, it is considered pseudoscience, i.e. fake science. The scientific method is the process of observation, questioning, and experimentation that is supposed to be followed by all researchers. It consists of a series of steps designed to test a hypothesis in order to either validate or invalidate it."
“Virology is at a loss from the very start as they can not observe a “virus” in nature. They can not see a “virus” float into a host and witness this act causing disease. They can not watch “viruses” being transferred from person to person through tiny droplets or aerosols in the air. As virologists can not observe “viruses” at all, they had to assume something “virus-like” existed in the first place causing disease. In other words, “viruses” were nothing but an idea from the beginning. We are still waiting for the proof that these fictional entities actually exist."
The scientific method is indeed a flexible framework rather than a rigid set of rules. It encompasses a variety of principles that can be applied differently depending on the specific area of study or research question at hand. When it comes to the existence of a particular cell, for example, cause and effect relationships may not always be necessary to establish its presence.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that not all microorganisms, such as viruses, exhibit the same cause and effect relationship commonly associated with pathogenicity or cytopathic effects. Therefore, insisting on proving cytopathic effects to establish the existence of a cell would be fallacious since cells do not necessarily demonstrate such effects. The process of observing cytopathic effects is separate and specific to certain viruses, and it should not be a universal requirement to prove the existence of all viral entities.
In the case of many insect and plant viruses, artificial cell culture may not be required1. These organisms allow for the collection of multiple specimens together, providing an adequate sample size. Viruses can be directly extracted from various insect or plant hosts, purified, and observed under microscopy without the need for artificial culture. In such cases, cytopathic effects observed in artificial culture, which may involve the use of mildly damaging serums, do not come into play. Therefore, claiming that viruses must require artificial cell culture and cytopathic effects to prove their existence is not valid.
Some individuals within the "No-Virus" group argue that virology does not adhere to the scientific method because researchers do not follow the specific process of extracting a virus from a host, purifying it, and directly observing it under a microscope without artificial cell culture. However, it is important to apply logical reasoning to such claims. The inability to physically observe something initially does not negate the existence of an agent causing or contributing to an effect. Science often begins with ideas and theories, which are then supported by empirical evidence. The existence of viruses was initially theorized and later confirmed through electron microscopy in the 1930s. Similarly, we can infer the existence of bacteria, even though they are not visible to the naked eye, by observing their effects on larger organisms and the breakdown of organic matter during decomposition.
The existence of viruses can be established through various methods, rather than a single set of strict criteria. Each virus has its own unique characteristics and requirements, and therefore, the approach to studying and proving their existence must be tailored accordingly. It is crucial to understand that scientific knowledge evolves over time, and the scientific method allows for flexibility and adaptation as new information and technologies emerge.
The notion that the "scientific method" defined by the "No-Virus" group is the only valid approach is flawed and impractical. They are imposing their own criteria and definitions onto the scientific method, which goes against the inherent flexibility and diversity of scientific inquiry.
The Scientific Method Defined
But first, a potential misunderstanding needs to be avoided. The scientific method “is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,” rather than being seen for what it truly is, “a highly variable and creative process” (AAAS 2000:18). The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow.
Cont. . .
…it merits mention that the thesis proposed here accords with the official position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS is the world’s largest scientific society, the umbrella organization for almost 300 scientific organizations and publisher of the prestigious journal Science. Accordingly, the AAAS position bids fair as an expression of the mainstream opinion2.
—Scientific Method in Practice by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. 2003 - Cornell University - p.3-5
The "No-Virus" group has devised a set of rules that are specifically designed to protect their positions, as evidenced by the language they use. They have created a scenario where researchers are faced with impossible demands and then use any outcome to discredit the experiments.
For instance, if researchers successfully extract and purify a virus from a host using a filtration medium, the "No-Virus" group will dismiss the results by labeling the medium as a "toxic soup." By doing so, they can easily claim that the experiment was flawed. However, it is inevitable that some form of medium must be used for filtration, making their criticism unreasonable.
Similarly, if researchers follow the request of the "No-Virus" group and examine a sample under microscopy, they would be accused of "guessing" the identity of particles. Essentially, the "No-Virus" group has set up a situation where researchers are bound to fail, regardless of the circumstances. This tactic is indeed clever, as it positions them as the supposed "winners" in any situation.
In reality, the "No-Virus" group is attempting to rigidly define a singular "scientific method" that does not align with the practical reality of scientific research. The scientific method is not a uniform set of rules that remain unchanged in all situations. It is widely recognized within the scientific community that the scientific method is a set of principles that adapt and evolve based on the specific circumstances of a given study or investigation. This flexibility is inherent to the nature of science itself, as it constantly progresses and incorporates new knowledge and methodologies.
Therefore, the notion that there is a single, fixed scientific method that can be strictly followed, as claimed by those who deny the existence of viruses, is unfounded. Science is a dynamic discipline that embraces change and refinement, and the scientific method reflects this inherent adaptability.
Fallacious Reasoning
The claims made by the "No-Virus" group are fraught with inaccuracies and misinterpretations, some of which stem from the work of Harold Hillman. Hillman, in his later years, contended that certain cellular components, such as the Golgi apparatus and endoplasmic reticulum, did not exist based on observations made through electron microscopy (EM). While it is true that early usage of EM may have introduced alterations to cellular appearances, it is essential to employ proper techniques and staining methods in order to obtain accurate results in both EM and optical microscopy.
In the context of viruses and EM, even if the nature of EM can influence the structural appearance of viruses to some extent, their intelligent and discernible organization remains evident. EM is not used to visualize the exact motion of cellular bodies but rather to capture static snapshots that help fill in gaps in our understanding. Researchers acknowledge that cellular structures may appear differently in their native 3D environment compared to the 2D plane of slides used for observation. These considerations must be taken into account when interpreting microscopy data.
Significant advancements have been made in EM techniques and viewing methodologies since Hillman's time over 50 years ago. The issues he raised were overcome by researchers in the 1940s and 1950s. Additionally, it is important to note that Hillman's theories lacked logical coherence and were based on assumptions and conjectures regarding how cellular components should appear, disregarding the comprehensive understanding of cellular processes. The Golgi apparatus, ribosomes, receptors, and other essential cellular structures are vital for various cellular functions, and their existence is supported by extensive scientific evidence.
Furthermore, the so-called artifacts attributed to EM by Hillman are observed under various microscopy techniques, which fundamentally contradicts his claims. His contemporaries at the time pointed out the flaws in his arguments, acknowledging that although EM had limitations, the results obtained were representative of reality. Unfortunately, Hillman dismissed their advice and persisted with unfounded assertions.
It is worth emphasizing that without cell walls, the components of the body would be unorganized and intermixed, rendering essential processes impossible. Cell walls play a crucial role in the body's ability to engulf and neutralize organic waste debris and toxins, as well as in the extraction of nutrients from food. Without cell walls, cellular components would be exposed and vulnerable, leading to rapid oxidation and systemic toxicity, ultimately resulting in the demise of the organism.
It is important to recognize that bacteria, which are also cells, contribute significantly to our overall health. Bacteria aid in the digestion of food by breaking it down into utilizable forms for other cells to consume. In fact, approximately 98% of the human body is comprised of bacteria. Without cells, digestion would be impossible.
Moreover, receptors on the surfaces of cells play a critical role in cellular communication and the execution of functions such as endocytosis and exocytosis. Without receptor-mediated signaling mediated by electrically charged bonds, vital processes within the body would be severely impaired or cease to occur.
In the end, the claims made by the "No-Virus" group, influenced in part by Harold Hillman's flawed assertions, are riddled with inaccuracies and misunderstandings. It is essential to rely on rigorous scientific evidence and established knowledge to comprehend the intricate workings of cellular structures and their significance in maintaining overall physiological functions.
Addressing Virus Isolation
In virology, isolation refers to the purification of a sample using centrifugation. The general definition of isolation is to separate a substance from all foreign substances, making it pure and obtaining it in a free state. It is important to note that when isolating particles as small as viruses, a purified sample may still contain a very small percentage of minute debris. Achieving 100% purity, which is challenging for microscale objects, is not necessary to demonstrate the existence of a virus. Therefore, the strict adherence to "pure" as advocated by the "No-Virus" group, based on the basic definition, does not align with the realistic level of purification required due to the scale of viruses. Virologists are not changing the meaning of isolation or purification; they are simply dealing with the practical considerations of purification at the appropriate scale.
An isolate, pronounced as 'ī-sə-lət' (i-so-lit), is a sample that is placed into cell culture and then shown to cause cytopathic effects (CPE). The definition of isolate, in this context, refers to an individual, population, strain, or culture obtained through selection or separation, or a culture of microorganisms isolated for study.
It is crucial to recognize the distinction between the pronunciation and meaning of the term 'isolate' (i-so-late) and 'isolate' (i-so-lit), as they carry significant differences. Virologists are not changing the definitions of isolation; they are using these terms appropriately based on their specific contexts. Therefore, the claim that virologists are altering the definitions of isolation or purification is inaccurate.
The word isolate (noun)(‘i-so-lit’), is the term used to describe a whole process—normally a sample placed into cell culture, shown to cause CPE, then isolated/purified thereafter, then deemed an ‘isolate’.
The word isolate (as in ‘isolation’ - ‘i-so-late’), is used to describe the purification of a sample at any stage (i.e. before and/or after culture).
These differentiations are vitally important to note.
Further Clarity of Terms
In the field of virology, the terms "isolation" and "purification" are often used interchangeably, but it is important to note potential differences in their usage within scientific studies. Traditionally, isolation and purification were separate steps, with purification following the isolation of viruses from a sample. However, with advancements in technology, it has become possible to directly isolate viruses from clinical samples and then purify them for further study. This approach saves time and resources by combining the isolation and purification processes. An article titled "Is the Era of Viral Culture Over in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory?"3 explores this topic and highlights the evolving practices in the field. When engaging with scientific literature, it is of utmost importance to correctly interpret the usage of the term "isolation." In certain instances, this term may encompass the entire process involved in extracting a virus from a sample, which includes cell culture isolation and results in the creation of what is known as an "isolate." To ensure accurate comprehension, it is essential to pay attention to the specific language employed in studies and to be mindful of any nuances or distinctions in terminology.
Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that, although isolation and purification are closely interrelated processes, they have historically been treated as separate steps for various other biological entities. Moreover, this differentiation continues to hold significance in certain contexts.
In some studies, the term "isolation" may be utilized to describe the comprehensive process of isolating a virus from a sample, encompassing not only the extraction but also the subsequent steps, such as cell culture isolation, which allows for the propagation and study of the virus. This broader use of the term may include additional procedures beyond the initial isolation step.
Contrarily, those associated with the "No-Virus" group, advocate for absolute sample purity and adhere to strict definitions of "isolation" and "purity." According to their perspective, for a virus to be considered genuinely isolated, it must undergo thorough purification and be demonstrated to cause disease. Without meeting these criteria, the existence and identification of the virus might be challenged.
However, isolation and purification have historically been treated as distinct processes for various biological entities. Isolation primarily involves the separation and extraction of a specific entity, such as a virus, from a complex mixture or sample. This process often employs techniques like filtration, centrifugation, or other separation methods to isolate the target entity of interest.
On the other hand, purification encompasses additional steps aimed at refining the isolated sample by removing contaminants, impurities, or undesired components. Purification techniques may include additional filtration, chromatography, or purification methods tailored to enhance the purity and concentration of the isolated entity.
While isolation and purification are closely intertwined, their treatment as separate entities emphasizes the importance of purification in obtaining a refined sample. The level of purification required may vary depending on the specific research objectives, ranging from initial characterizations of relatively crude isolates to detailed biochemical or structural studies necessitating highly purified isolates.
To ensure accurate interpretation, it is vital to consider the context and objectives of a study when encountering the terms "isolation" and "purification." The scientific community recognizes the significance of precise terminology and definitions in facilitating clear and accurate communication within the scientific discourse.
The terms “isolation” and “purification” often are used interchangeably by virologists to describe separation of virus particles in a pure form, free from [plant] host constituents. In this chapter the term “purification” will be used to describe this activity. The term “isolation” will be used to describe the pure culture isolation of a single virus from a mixture of co-infecting viruses.4
In the study mentioned, it is evident that the term "isolation" pertains to the process of isolating a virus from an inoculated cell culture with CPE, while "purification" specifically refers to the separation of virus particles from the original sample, resulting in a purified form that is free from host constituents. This distinction highlights the different aspects of obtaining a pure virus sample for further analysis.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the capabilities of electron microscopy in detecting the presence of viral particles within purified samples. Contrary to the claims made by "No-Virus", the requirement for samples to be entirely free from debris (at a 100% level of purity) in order to observe and demonstrate the existence of viral particles is not accurate.
Electron microscopy, a powerful imaging technique used in virology, allows for the visualization of viral particles with high resolution. While it is advantageous to have purified samples for electron microscopy analysis, it is not necessary for the samples to be completely devoid of all debris. In fact, the presence of some background debris or non-viral components does not preclude the identification and observation of viral particles.
Electron microscopy techniques can effectively distinguish viral particles based on their distinct morphology and structural characteristics, even in the presence of other components. Researchers employ various sample preparation methods, such as negative staining or cryo-electron microscopy, to enhance the visibility and contrast of viral particles, facilitating their identification and characterization.
Therefore, the assertion that samples must achieve absolute purity (100%) to be observed and proven to contain viral particles is a misconception. Electron microscopy, along with appropriate sample preparation techniques, enables the detection and visualization of viral particles in purified samples, even in the presence of some debris or non-viral constituents.
“The observation of particles in the electron microscope, whilst not a good criterion of purity, does allow the detection of 'unwanted structures'.” — Virology Methods Manual 1996, p.88
Archaic Virus Purification (circa 1953):
Animal viruses are usually purified for the purpose of learning their properties. To this end, nothing less than the highest possible purity is acceptable, regardless of the tedious procedures and small yields.
Cont. . .
No purification procedures are known that are based on specific selection of infectious particles from crude material. All depend on the selection of particles homogeneous with respect to the sedimentation rate (size, shape, and density), electric charge, adsorption behavior, or some other physical or chemical property. Much of the evidence of purity is, consequently, based on the degree of this homogeneity observed in the purified product.5
—Advances in Virus Research - Volume 1, 1953, Pages 277-313 - D. GordonSharp - p.1
Hence, it is important to recognize that the level of purification required for virus samples is not as stringent or absolute as asserted by the "No-Virus" group. Attaining 100% complete purity is not a prerequisite for conducting research, but rather striving for the "highest possible" purity is sufficient.
If the claims made by the "No-Virus" group were accurate, it would be essential for studies to explicitly state in their abstracts that viruses cannot be purified under any circumstances. However, this is not the case, indicating that the group has constructed a strawman fallacy by adopting an absolute interpretation of "purification" that does not align with practical realities. It should be acknowledged that achieving perfect purification is an unattainable goal in practice.
In reality, when purifying viral samples and organic tissues of both macro and micro scales, minor compromises are inevitable. Complete removal of all impurities or non-viral components is challenging, and some residual debris may persist even after purification procedures. Scientists understand that purification is a process of continuous improvement aimed at enhancing the purity and concentration of the isolated virus, rather than achieving absolute perfection.
Therefore, while purification plays a crucial role in obtaining a refined virus sample, it is important to acknowledge that compromises and trade-offs are inherent in the process. The focus is on achieving the highest possible level of purity that allows for accurate characterization and study of the isolated virus, rather than striving for an unattainable state of absolute perfection.
Further information on purification and sample nature:
Ultracentrifugation is the usual technique of choice for the purification of particles of defined size (i.e. virions) from their contaminating materials. In any suspension of particles their rate of sedimentation depends not only on the size, density and morphology of the particles but also on the nature of the medium in which they are suspended and the force applied to the particles during centrifugation. One important contributory factor to consider in the separation and ultimate purification of virions from contaminating materials is therefore the viscosity of the medium in which they are centrifuged…6
Upon extracting samples from a host organism, it is necessary to prepare them for purification through centrifugation. In this process, the samples are typically combined with fluids and serums of specific viscosity to facilitate their handling and manipulation. It is important to note that the "No-Virus" group falsely asserts that these fluids contaminate the sample, characterizing it as a crude "soup." However, it is crucial to clarify that this combination with fluids occurs prior to centrifugation.
Centrifugation, a widely employed technique in virus purification, plays a vital role in separating components based on their density or mass. Once the samples are appropriately combined with the desired fluids, centrifugation is carried out. During centrifugation, the mixture is subjected to high-speed rotation, causing the particles to sediment based on their density or size.
As a result of centrifugation, the virus particles, along with other desired components, form a distinct band or pellet, while unwanted contaminants and waste materials settle at different positions or are removed. This step effectively separates the virus particles from the bulk of the sample, facilitating their subsequent extraction and purification.
Following centrifugation, the purified virus band or pellet is carefully extracted for further research, allowing scientists to focus specifically on the isolated viral component. The removal of unwanted materials and the extraction of the purified virus band enhance the concentration and purity of the viral sample, enabling more accurate and specific investigations.
Therefore, it is important to recognize that the fluids used in the initial stage of sample preparation do not contaminate the sample but rather aid in its handling and subsequent purification. The subsequent centrifugation step effectively separates the desired virus particles from unwanted debris and waste, leading to a purified viral sample that is suitable for further research and analysis.
Purification of virus samples aims to achieve the highest possible level of purity, not absolute perfection. Electron microscopy techniques allow for the detection and visualization of viral particles, even in the presence of some debris. Centrifugation is a key step in separating virus particles from unwanted contaminants, leading to a purified viral sample suitable for further study.
In addition to the points I have already presented, there are numerous other arguments that can be used to challenge the claims made by virus-deniers.
Summary
In summary, the "No-Virus" group’s failure to acknowledge the incorrect usage of applicable terms, as I have demonstrated, reveals their ignorance and futility in their arguments. Their misleading statements suggest to their audience that viruses do not exist and cannot be proven to exist simply because they are not completely purified from host fluids. This line of reasoning is fallacious and lacks a solid foundation.
Furthermore, "No-Virus" have no explanation for the presence of cohesive structures, as briefly discussed in this text. They also fail to provide an explanation for the unique symptoms associated with viral illnesses. Instead of offering well-founded theories to challenge established scientific knowledge, their approach revolves around misrepresenting the complexities of science. It is important to note that they do not present any sound and reasoned alternative theories to replace the existing ones put forth by the scientific community. As a result, their positions do not contribute to any meaningful improvements in people's lives.
It is crucial to recognize that scientists employ rigorous methodologies, such as electron microscopy and centrifugation, to isolate and purify viral samples to the highest possible level. While complete purity may not be achievable in practice, the focus is on obtaining purified samples that allow for accurate characterization and study of the isolated virus.
In conclusion, the claims made by virus-deniers can be refuted using a multitude of arguments. Their failure to acknowledge the proper usage of terms and their misleading reasoning undermines their credibility. Furthermore, their inability to explain the presence of cohesive structures and unique symptoms associated with viral illnesses weakens their position.
It is important to rely on well-established scientific knowledge and to understand why and how certain biological entities must exist, rather than subscribing to unsupported claims that hinder scientific progress and fail to offer meaningful improvements in our understanding of the world.
Jeff Green
References:
A guide to the crystallographic analysis of icosahedral viruses
2015 - McPherson, A;Larson. p.6 - https://doi.org/10.1080/0889311X.2014.963572
Scientific Method in Practice by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. 2003 - Cornell University - p.3-5
Hodinka RL. Point: is the era of viral culture over in the clinical microbiology laboratory? - J Clin Microbiol. 2013.
Thomas, P.E., Kaniewski, W.K. (2001). Isolation and Purification. In: Loebenstein, G., Berger, P.H., Brunt, A.A., Lawson, R.H. (eds) Virus and Virus-like Diseases of Potatoes and Production of Seed-Potatoes. Springer, Dordrecht. - p.1
Advances in Virus Research - Volume 1, 1953, Pages 277-313 - D. GordonSharp - p.1
Killington RA, Stokes A, Hierholzer JC. Virus purification. Virology Methods Manual. 1996:71–89. doi: 10.1016/B978-012465330-6/50005-1. Epub 2007 Sep 2. PMCID: PMC7155528. - p.72