Debunking No-Virus Claims One-By-One
Their Most Popular Claims Refuted
Opening statement
Over the course of approximately five years, a collective known as 'No-Virus' has emerged, consisting of numerous individuals who persistently assert the notion that viruses are an elaborate fabrication propagated by virologists worldwide. This group has gone to great lengths to propagate the unsubstantiated belief that fields such as biology, microbiology, immunology, chemistry, and virology are fundamentally deceitful. Their claims, lacking any form of valid evidence, have been consistently unfounded. The subsequent discourse aims to critically analyze the most prevalent assertions made by this group, providing a comprehensive breakdown accessible to individuals without specialized knowledge in the field.
The 'No-Virus' movement has been characterized by a relentless series of false assertions aimed at undermining the credibility of scientific disciplines that have long been regarded as pillars of our understanding of the natural world. Their rhetoric seeks to create doubt and sow seeds of skepticism, effectively eroding public trust in the scientific community's collective knowledge and expertise, wherein they become the self-proclaimed purveyors of ‘truth’.
By dismissing the foundational principles of microbiology, 'No-Virus' proponents disregard centuries of meticulous scientific inquiry, which has unraveled the complex mechanisms of microscopic organisms and their relationship to living systems. Their refusal to acknowledge the vast body of evidence supporting the existence of viruses betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific methodology and the rigorous processes by which knowledge is acquired and refined.
Despite the alarming lack of credibility and evidence, the 'No-Virus' movement continues to peddle its anti-science drivel to a waiting audience, preying on the fears and uncertainties of individuals who may lack a comprehensive scientific background or understanding. It is, therefore, imperative to systematically dismantle their fallacious arguments, presenting a clear and accessible refutation for the benefit of the general public.
The 'No-Virus' group, in their relentless pursuit to discredit virologists and scientific disciplines, employs a cunning strategy that involves cherry-picking scientific literature and distorting its findings to create an illusion of incompetence within the field. By selectively highlighting instances of uncertainty or evolving knowledge throughout the history of virology and related disciplines, they seek to undermine the credibility of virologists and portray them as inept or deceptive.
One of the tactics employed by the 'No-Virus' group is to exploit the inherent nature of scientific research, which is characterized by a continuous quest for knowledge and the evolution of understanding. They deliberately focus on historical scientific literature that may contain discrepancies or areas of uncertainty, ignoring the fact that scientific knowledge is built upon a foundation of constant revision and refinement. By magnifying these uncertainties, they create a false narrative that virologists have been consistently wrong or unreliable in their findings.
Furthermore, the 'No-Virus' movement often takes scientific studies out of context and misrepresents their conclusions to fit their predetermined narrative. They selectively extract isolated statements or findings from research papers, disregarding the broader context and the limitations of the studies themselves. By doing so, they manipulate the scientific literature to support their unfounded claims and create an illusion of scientific disagreement or confusion.
Given the extensive range of misguided claims propagated by the 'No-Virus' group, it would be impractical and beyond the scope of this paper to undertake a comprehensive dismantling of every individual assertion. The purpose of this paper, instead, is to provide a concise yet insightful analysis of the most prevalent and influential claims put forth by this group. By focusing on these key arguments, I intend to shed light on the fallacious reasoning and lack of scientific basis that underpin their anti-science narrative.
Claim 1:
Viruses are nothing more than vesicles, like exosomes, or cell debris.
What Does the Science Say?
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, VOL. 54, NO.5, MAY 1975
Those directly involved in the study of the ultrastructure of viruses know that naked viruses-those without an envelope-can be identified electron microscopically because of the characteristic structure of the capsid layer, i.e., the number and structure of the capsomeres of which it is composed. Even enveloped DNA viruses such as the herpes group can be identified by the number of capsomeres (162) in the capsid.
Members of the diplornavirus group (orbiviruses and reoviruses) can also be identified as virus by the presence of capsomeres. However, the type-C members of the RNA tumor virus group (which are now occupying the thoughts and energies of many investigators) do not have ultrastructural characteristics clearly identifying them as do the above mentioned viruses.
For example, occasional particles, which have the characteristics of type-C particles may be found in the plasma of leukemia lymphoma patients (21). They have a moderately electron-dense center (nucleoid) separated by an electron-lucent space from a unit membrane envelope. To identify such particles as virus purely on an ultrastructural basis, some evidence of replication must be presented. Otherwise they can only be called virus-like particles.
Summary
Unenveloped (naked) viruses possess a distinctive and recognizable structure that can be readily observed under electron microscopy, even without analyzing their nucleic acid sequence. These structures are easily distinguishable from vesicles. However, challenges arise with enveloped viruses such as measles or coronaviruses, as they possess a lipid envelope that can disguise them, causing them to resemble vesicles upon initial inspection. In such instances, nucleic acid analysis is typically required to establish certainty.
Hence, asserting that all viruses are indistinguishable from vesicles is a false statement. This argument has been consistently argued by No-Virus for years.
Claim 2 (cont. of claim 1):
Viruses have no distinct structures.
What Does the Science Say?
‘Some Implications of a Morphologically Oriented Classification of Viruses’ By JUNE D. ALMEIDA and A. P. WATERSON, Department of Virology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London, England - March, 1970
During the ten years that have elapsed since the electron microscope technique of negative staining was applied to virus particles (BRENNER and HORNE, 1959), it has become clear that the morphology of a virus is an integral and essential aspect of our knowledge about it.
For technical reasons the first serious work on virus structure was carried out by X-ray diffraction (HODGKIN, 1949), and the limitations of this technique confined it to selected viruses that could be obtained in sufficient quantity and purity. In practice this limited the study to the simple viruses above the ether line, and it is not surprising that in each case it was possible to demonstrate that the virus particles displayed either cubic or helical symmetry. Concurrently with this the nucleic acid content of viruses such as tobacco mosaic and turnip yellow mosaic became available.
These figures, together with the X-ray diffraction results, led CRICK and WATSON (1957) to speculate on theoretical grounds that viruses contain so little nucleic acid that their protective protein covering would have to be made of repeating identical subunits and that these subunits must be arranged in a simple manner as regards each other, i.e. that they would display either cubic or helical symmetry. This then led to the postulate that a virus, in its physical make-up, would have a moiety of one type of nucleic acid and a symmetrically arranged layer of protein subunits to protect this essential genetic element. Obviously, this description is an apt one for all those viruses above the ether line, but is less fitting for those below it.
…it appears that the more nucleic acid a virus has the more it is freed from the strict dictates of symmetry.Also, at the upper margin of nucleic acid content, viruses have other features, such as sensitivity even to some conventional antibiotics (SUBAK-SHARPE et al., 1969), and the possession of internal enzymes, features not encountered among the smaller, classical viruses. This means that the spectrum of viruses runs from the very small, strictly symmetrical, satellite viruses, which are incapable of replication without a helper virus, and which, on theoretical grounds, must represent the simplest possible form of life, to the large poxviruses, which are beginning to show some of the properties associated with the next higher groups of organisms, i.e. the Rickettsiae and the bacteria.
Claim 3:
Viruses have never been purified directly from a host without culture.
What Does the Science Say?
JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, Nov. 1972, p. 1075-1081, 1972 American Society for Microbiology Vol. 10, No. 5
The 2% second human passage stool filtrate (8Fiia) used in these immune electron microscopy studies was derived from a stool specimen of a volunteer who developed gastroenteritis after oral administration of a stool filtrate derived from one of the two volunteers who became ill after receiving the original inoculum from the Norwalk outbreak (1, 11, 12). The 8FMa pool, which had been filtered through a 1,200- and a 450-nm membrane filter (Millipore Corp.) and prepared by previously described methods, was known to contain an infectious agent; it had induced gastroenteritis in 6 of 10 volunteers, but extensive attempts to recover or detect an etiological agent by conventional techniques were unsuccessful (11, 12; R. Dolin et al., unpublished studies).
Therefore, we examined this filtrate for the presence of virus particles by immune electron microscopy utilizing inactivated convalescent serum from experimentally infected volunteers as the source of 1075 NOTES specific antibody as previously described in our coronavirus studies (A. Kapikian et al., Infect. Immunity 7, 1973, in press). This approach was taken in the hope that virus particles would appear in the form of aggregates, thereby enabling the observation of a small virus, possibly present in low titer. The serum-stool filtrate mixtures (and at various times, 0.85% phosphate-buffered [pH 7.4] saline [PBS]-stool filtrate mixtures) were incubated at room temperature for 1 hr routinely. PBS was then added, if necessary, to make a final pre-centrifugation volume of 1.0 ml for each mixture.
The mixtures were then centrifuged at 17,000 rev/min for 90 min in a Sorvall RC2B centrifuge with an SS34 fixed-angle rotor. The supernatant fluid was carefully discarded; the pellet or sediment was suspended with a few drops of distilled water, stained with 3% phosphotungstic acid (PTA), pH 7.2, placed on a 400- mesh Formvar-carbon coated grid, with the excess fluid being removed with the edge of a filter paper disc, and the grid examined at a magnification of 40,000 with a Siemens Elmiskop 1A electron microscope (3, 18).
Summary
Source of Sample:
The stool filtrate used in the study was derived from a human volunteer who developed gastroenteritis after being administered a stool filtrate from another volunteer. This indicates that the sample came directly from human subjects without any cell culture.
Filtration Process:
The stool filtrate was subjected to filtration through 1,200-nm and 450-nm membrane filters. This process is for removing larger particles and concentrating the virus, not for growing the virus in culture.
Detection Method:
The detection of virus particles was performed using immune electron microscopy (IEM). Specifically, inactivated convalescent serum from infected volunteers was used to aggregate virus particles, making them visible under an electron microscope. The mixtures were centrifuged, and the resulting pellet was stained and observed directly under the electron microscope.
No Mention of Cell Culture:
The entire process described focuses on direct examination of the stool filtrate using filtration, centrifugation, and electron microscopy techniques. There is no indication or mention of any cell culture steps used to propagate or isolate the virus.
Claim 4:
Viruses must be 100% purified to be studied.
What Does the Science Say?
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1997. Purification, Composition, and Morphology of Virions.
Morphology, as defined by electron microscopy, is one of the major criteria for classification of viruses. The technique of negative staining shows the perimeter and sometimes the center of the virion outlined by the surrounding accumulation of heavy metal, typically uranyl acetate or phosphotungstate (Fig. 1I). In this rapid procedure, virus is simply adsorbed to a coated grid and then exposed briefly to the solution of heavy metal before viewing. For structures that can be penetrated by the heavy metal, negative staining usually allows excellent visualization of structural details, but the lipid membrane of enveloped viruses typically is not penetrated by the stain, limiting the usefulness of this technique for retroviruses.
Retroviral particles usually are purified on the basis of their size and density. Because the particles are shed into the extracellular medium, purification is simple and efficient if disruption of cells can be avoided, as, for example, when the virus is derived from cultured mammalian or avian cells or from the plasma of an animal.
Virus purified in this way invariably is contaminated with some cellular proteins, because membrane vesicles from broken or intact cells have a density similar to that of the virus. Higher levels of purification can be achieved by selecting not only for particle density, but also for particle size, for example, by rate zonal sedimentation. The most concentrated and clean source of any retrovirus is the plasma of chicks infected with avian myeloblastosis virus (AMV), which can contain as much as several milligrams of virus per milliliter of plasma (1 mg is about 1012 virions). It is for this reason that many of the early biochemical studies of viral structural proteins and of reverse transcriptase were carried out with this member of the ASLV genus.
MANUAL of AQUATIC VIRAL ECOLOGY - Purification of viruses by centrifugation, Janice E. Lawrence and Grieg F. Steward - Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick - Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu
Purification of viruses from natural samples—Purifying viruses directly from natural marine and freshwater samples is similar in many respects to purifying a virus from a culture lysate; the goal in both cases is to separate the viruses from as much of the contaminating material as possible. There are, however, a few additional considerations in working with natural samples. For many applications, one is interested in harvesting and purifying the entire viral assemblage, which is comprised of viruses having a broad range of physico-chemical properties. These diverse viruses must be separated from the heterogeneous collection of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells that comprise the plankton.
Depending on the purpose to which the purified viruses will be put, it may also be necessary to separate the viruses from organic and inorganic particulates and dissolved material. If the purpose of the purification is to perform molecular analyses of the viral nucleic acids, the requirement for purity may be more stringent, and viruses may need to be separated from both cells and from dissolved nucleic acids. Although viruses usually outnumber cells in the plankton by over an order of magnitude, their genomes are so small that their nucleic acids make up only a small percentage of cellular and dissolved pools.The most common first step in purifying viruses from natural samples is filtration through a membrane having pore size of 0.2 or 0.22 µm. This removes virtually all of the cells, while allowing the vast majority of viruses to pass in the filtrate. The method is not perfect, as there are reports of ultramicrobacteria that can pass a 0.2 µm filter (reviewed by Velimirov 2001), and some marine viruses have diameters in excess of 0.2 µm (Bratbak et al. 1992; Garza and Suttle 1995). Viruses smaller than the pore size can also be trapped on the filter by adsorption or pore occlusion, resulting on occasion in low yields. Filtration is, however, very simple and effective for many purposes.
Summary
Morphology, observed through electron microscopy, plays a crucial role in classifying viruses. Negative staining, using heavy metals, outlines the virion's perimeter and center, enabling visualization of structural details, although it is less effective for enveloped viruses. Retroviral particles are purified based on size and density, with cell culture-derived or animal plasma sources yielding efficient purification, albeit with some cellular protein contamination. Higher levels of purification can be achieved by selecting for particle density and size through techniques like rate zonal sedimentation.
The process of purifying viruses from natural samples, such as marine or freshwater environments, involves separating the viruses from various contaminants. This includes separating the diverse viral assemblage from prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, as well as organic and inorganic particulates and dissolved material. Filtration through a membrane with a pore size of 0.2 or 0.22 µm is commonly used as the initial purification step, effectively removing cells while allowing most viruses to pass through.
The attainment of 100% purity in studying viruses is not a prerequisite, nor is it realistically achievable. Furthermore, the concept of purity itself is contingent upon the specific aspect of viruses under investigation. In the field of virology, researchers recognize that complete purification is not essential for studying viruses comprehensively. Instead, the focus lies in obtaining a level of purity that is suitable for the particular research objectives at hand. The degree of required purity varies depending on the specific aspects of viruses being examined, such as their structural components, genomic material, or functional properties.
Closing Thoughts
It has become evident through scientific inquiry that the assertions made by proponents of the No-Virus movement lack scientific validity and are unfounded. Such claims are devoid of empirical evidence and lack credibility within the realm of true scientific discourse. It is only a matter of time before individuals like myself are able to disseminate this information widely, effectively dismantling the anti-science and anti-truth narrative propagated by the No-Virus movement.
Individuals who possess a genuine commitment to seeking truth will readily acknowledge the aforementioned arguments, prompting them to embark on a journey towards truth and away from conspiratorial fear, that above all, has no substantiation in fact.
Viruses, ubiquitous entities on our planet, play indispensable roles in the functioning of life on Earth. They serve as facilitators in the interaction between organisms and their environment, enabling the flourishing of living entities in the face of life's challenges. Devoid of these essential mediators, life as we know it would be untenable. The notion that viruses do not exist contradicts over a century of scientific advancements in microbiology and evolutionary biology, instead embracing delusions and fantasies that disregard the fundamental realities of life.
Jeff Green
References
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, VOL. 54, NO.5, MAY 1975
‘Some Implications of a Morphologically Oriented Classification of Viruses’ By JUNE D. ALMEIDA and A. P. WATERSON, Department of Virology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London, England - March, 1970
JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, Nov. 1972, p. 1075-1081, 1972 American Society for Microbiology Vol. 10, No. 5
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1997. Purification, Composition, and Morphology of Virions.
MANUAL of AQUATIC VIRAL ECOLOGY - Purification of viruses by centrifugation, Janice E. Lawrence and Grieg F. Steward - Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick - Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu
Regarding the 1972 study in Claim 3...I understand you are citing this to point out that a nearly pure virus sample has been taken directly from a human host in the past, but the researchers in the paper assert they caused gastroenteritis by passing Norovirus from one person to another. I would expect you to disagree with this conclusion based on your alignment with Terrain Theory, or have you modified your position on this upon further research? Thanks.
Regarding that picture of the things that were filtered out of the stool sample. How exactly do you know that those things were 'viruses'? Who knows what they are? You are just assuming they are 'viruses'.