Mark Bailey's Incorrect Assertions

source

---

Quote: "The definition of a virus must include 'obligate intracellular parasite' – it must be infectious, replication competent and transmissible." – Mark Bailey

Response: This definition isn’t just outdated, it’s wrong. It excludes entire categories of viruses that have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature. Hepatitis D isn’t replication competent without a helper virus, yet it’s undeniably a virus. Endogenous retroviruses are inherited through our genome, not transmitted between people, but they’re still viruses. Lab-engineered particles, defective virions, and giant viruses like Mimivirus all defy this narrow criteria, and all are classed as viruses. You don’t get to redefine the field just to suit your argument. Virology has evolved, and definitions must reflect reality, not personal bias.

The “No Virus” crowd often insists on the definition of a virus as an obligate intracellular parasite, yet they simultaneously claim that if a virus isn’t pathogenic, it isn’t a virus. But the term parasite in this context refers to biological dependency, not necessarily pathogenicity.

---

Quote: "Bacteriophages and giant 'viruses' can be properly isolated but don’t seem to be parasitic as was originally thought – as per Dr Stefan Lanka’s work."

Response: This claim misrepresents the biology of these viruses. Bacteriophages are textbook examples of obligate intracellular parasites—they infect bacteria, replicate using the host’s machinery, and often destroy the host in the process. They are viruses. Giant viruses like Mimivirus also replicate inside amoebae and cannot function independently, fitting the parasitic model despite their complexity.

Furthermore, putting “viruses” in quotation marks is not an argument, it’s merely a tactic to dismiss the existence of viruses. It’s used to cast doubt without evidence, to suggest that bacteriophages and giant viruses don’t truly qualify as viruses, despite meeting every accepted scientific criterion.

---

Quote: "The word ‘virus’ derives from poison so to use the term for other purposes (e.g. a 'messenger' particle) would seem incorrect to me – virus should be reserved for the strict definition. I’m yet to see evidence of any virus in this sense." – Mark Bailey

Response: This definition of virus as ‘poison’ arose around 55 BC, thus 2,080 years ago. In Classical Latin, virus was a common noun used by writers like Cicero (c. 55 BC) and Virgil to describe poisonous or noxious substances, such as snake venom, putrid fluids, or slimy secretions. So, virus was understood and used to mean “poison” in ordinary Roman language, not defined in a scientific taxonomy.

Therefore, while it’s true that the word “virus” originally meant “poison” in Latin, modern science doesn't rely on etymology to define biological entities. Scientific terminology evolves with understanding, and today the term “virus” refers to a broad category of submicroscopic agents that replicate only inside living cells—not to a toxin. Furthermore, dismissing messenger-like roles ignores discoveries like exosome-mediated viral communication and viral-like particles used in gene therapy. Clinging to the word’s ancient root over its modern, evidence-based definition is linguistically rigid and scientifically unhelpful.
The “No Virus” movement insists on the ancient Latin meaning of virus as “poison” not for scientific accuracy, but as a rhetorical device. By leaning on this outdated definition, they use linguistic ‘gotchas’ to cast doubt on modern virology, implying that the term virus was misleadingly redefined to fit a flawed medical model. This strategy avoids engaging with biological evidence and instead appeals to laypeople by making science seem like a language trick.

The claim that “if a virus isn’t pathogenic, it can’t be called a virus” is fundamentally incorrect. Pathogenicity is not part of the core scientific definition of a virus. A virus is defined by its structure and behavior: a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside host cells. Whether it causes disease or not is secondary. By that logic, a harmless strain of E. coli wouldn’t be a bacterium, or a benign tumor wouldn’t be called a tumor. Scientific classification is based on what something is, not just what it does. To say “no pathology = not a virus” is to reject basic virology.

---

Conclusion

The assertion by the "No Virus" movement that viruses do not exist is, frankly, one of the most baseless and scientifically untenable claims ever put forward. Viruses are ubiquitous in nature, intricately woven into the fabric of all ecosystems. Without them, the adaptive capacity of living organisms would be severely impaired, leading to their quick demise. Indeed, a substantial body of evidence now supports the hypothesis that viruses played a fundamental role in the origin of life itself, functioning as genetic catalysts and agents of horizontal gene transfer.

Viruses can be understood not merely as pathogenic agents but as cellular survival mechanisms shaped through deep evolutionary processes. Far from being solely destructive, viruses often act as mediators of genetic exchange, stress response, and adaptation. Some viral elements are embedded within host genomes and perform regulatory functions essential for development, immune modulation, and cellular repair. In this light, viruses are not external invaders but deeply integrated biological entities that have co-evolved with cellular life to serve, in many cases, as vectors of adaptation and survival under changing environmental pressures. That is why modern science is moving away from the once-held dogmatic view of viruses as the actual cause of disease. Modern science now understands, through their study, that viruses are a result of disease. The “No Virus” movement, in all its posturing, should understand the byproducts of disease and how extensively disease manifests and is detoxified from the body.

To deny the existence of viruses is logically equivalent to denying the existence of enzymes, proteins, or DNA, all of which are integral components of viral architecture. Viruses are not metaphysical constructs; they are assemblies of biological macromolecules. The rejection of their existence is not only scientifically indefensible but intellectually incoherent.

The "No Virus" movement has shown virtually no growth in its understanding over the past five years. That alone should speak volumes about where its priorities truly lie. In contrast, many researchers and independent thinkers have significantly deepened their knowledge during this time, continually reassessing assumptions in light of new data and perspectives. Yet the “No Virus” narrative remains frozen, repeating the same narrow talking points without any meaningful evolution, even after ample evidence and counterarguments have been presented by myself and many others. This intellectual stagnation reveals that their commitment is not to discovery or truth, but to the maintenance of a fixed ideological position for whatever agenda they have.

Jeff Green

---