How Do We Know There's A Virus?

Viruses certainly exist. One can visualize them with an electron microscope. The argument among some is whether viruses are living. Most think they do not qualify as living as they cannot reproduce. They utilize the reproduction mechanism in a cell to reproduce for them. Another argument is whether "free" viruses exist, i.e., those not attached to anything. I was taught they do exist, but now it is held by most that they do not exist. I still believe free viruses exist.

At the beginning of this thread, Koch's Postulates were mentioned, so the initiator has had some biology/microbiology training or self-study. Koch's Postulates were developed to differentiate harmful bacteria from innocuous or beneficial ones. Dr. Koch didn't know viruses existed then. Even with the 1918 influenza, the illness was believed to be caused by a bacteria. Great efforts were made to isolate the bug that caused the flu. Most scientists at the time believed it was caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae, as that was the organism found in the lungs of the deceased. When tested in animals, the bacteria isolated caused pneumonia but not the other symptoms.

One of the things that bother me most about the things the powers-that-be have done with the current "pandemic" is that the precautions they have recommended for mitigation are the very ones used for bacteria and were used without success in the 1918-19 pandemic. They didn't work then and, other than keeping a distance, they don't generally work now. Most bacteria are easily cultured; many viruses are not easily cultured. As a result, DNA/RNA isolation and PCR or some other amplification method is used to detect their presence. "PCR", however, cannot determine if the virus is viable and capable of causing disease. Chlamydia, although not a virus, shares some properties and can be used for this comparison. An acquaintance was once in charge of monitoring sexually-transmitted diseases among prostitutes in Nevada. He used an amplification technique to detect infected people. As a screening procedure, it worked fine. The infected people were notified and treated, and instructed to return for a re-check in two weeks. Upon their return, it was discovered that every one of the treated individuals were STILL POSITIVE. The technique couldn't differentiate between live and dead, and was picking up dead chlamydia in the treated people. He switched to using the amplification for screening and culture for the re-check, and everything straightened right out. Anyway, Koch's Postulates don't work as well with viruses as bacteria, as viruses are less "regular" that bacteria. Not everyone exposed to a virus develops disease symptoms. While that is also true of bacteria, it is much more pronounced with viruses. I know of many families who lived together in lockdown and 1 or 2 members of the family developed Covid symptoms, while the remainder of the family members did not.

Sorry I rambled so long, but in short, viruses DO exist and DO cause death and disease (even cancer sometimes), but not always.

 

Thanks for your post. Yes, viruses can cause cancer. Cervical cancer can start with certain types of human papillomavirus . Two HPV types (16 and 18) cause 70% of cervical cancers and pre-cancerous cervical lesions. There is also evidence linking HPV with cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, penis and oropharynx. So, yes virus exists and is a threat to human health and life. We had a big outbreak around here of West Nile Virus during mosquito season. A few humans got sick, none died, but a few hundred ravens and crows died. No fungal or bacterial infection, just WNV also know as the Asian Bird Flu. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to study chickenpox, the varicella virus.

 

Hey stop this crap ! Ken probably is ready to delete all virus related threads.
There is no use to waste breath, or time trying to to convince others who already have their mind made up - about anything. The bottom line is - you do what you have to do to protect yourself and family from others. They can do whatever they want to- just not on my porch.

 

Great post Don and I believe that your first sentence is truthfully the crux of the whole matter.
The better and more important points aren’t whether virus’s exist but rather what virus’s are and indeed the more science based philosophical point of whether a virus can be classified as being alive.
According to the books, in order to be classified as “alive”, there are seven points that have to be met and that’s where the confusion comes in and philosophy enters the arena and all too often brings about some rather ridiculous comparisons. e.g. rocks grow over time but they’re definitely not alive.
The criteria used in order to be defined as alive are:
1. Respond to stimuli
2. Grow over time
3. Produce Offspring
4. Maintain body temp
5. Metabolize energy
6..Consist of one or more cells
7. Adapt to an environment
Note: Some suspect that the free form virus’s date back before human life began and could actually replicate themselves but through time lost that ability. Of course, that gives the evolutionists a nudge because if true, then the first form of life could have been, yup, nucleic acid in a protein shell.

All in all, it’s good research and I was needing a little extra something to burn brain cells with. I’m still sifting through a very detailed paper with notations by Dr. Otto Yang and I can definitely say that I’m learning a lot.
Note: It would seem that Dr. Yang out of the University of Los Angeles and Dr. Amesh Adalja of Johns Hopkins have their own separate ideas on the matter too.
We are indeed in great company……..

 

The first virus linked to cancer (in my knowledge) was the Epstein-Barr virus. It is the same virus that is linked to mononucleosis but it is also linked to Burkitt's Lymphoma.

 

The topic is if viruses really exist. Whether or not a virus is a living thing is irrelevant to if the virus is real. However, since the opening statement uses the debatable ideas of microbiologists that set forth criteria needed to establish if something is living or not, we need to realize that most virologists disagree with this rope a dope idea.

Organelles are the components that are lacking in a virus. It would be correct to say that viruses are obligate parasites. Like a leech has lost its digestive system and relies on other organisms’ blood to survive, viruses are like parasitic DNA that needs a host to become living.

That host is a cell. A cell is an enclosed space with genetic material and organelles that perform certain functions. This is what cells are. When we look at a virus, it has genetic material but it is not enclosed within a membrane.

With that in mind and the fact that viruses considered nonliving can become living after cell invasion, it is reasonable to believe maybe the definition of what is living as established by microbiologists, isn't an established scientific fact, but rather a theory, a theory that fails because this nonliving virus can become living by invading and altering a cell. It grows, it replicates, it mutates. Interesting action for something that is dead or doesn't really exist.

So are viruses real? Damn tooting! And yes viruses will die after they kill you. Strange that something can die that never lived.

 

The only place I would differ with your list is #4. Many single-cell organisms exist at the temperature of their environment.

 

Like the steps for scientific experimentation, the criteria I listed is a generic list by whomever set the standards.
Just as “rocks” meet one part of the criteria for life because in a manner of speaking, they are able to grow but aren’t alive, the thing about maintaining body temperature is another one of those throw over items fit for the philosopher.
Reptiles for instance really do not maintain their own temperature but rely heavily on environmental sources but without a doubt, unless they are dead and possibly on someone’s plate in Louisiana, they are living creatures.

 

...and rocks do not respond to stimuli.

 

True but rocks can produce stimuli…..

I’m still doing a lot of reading. I’m presently enthralled with the lydic and lysogenic cycles of bacteriophages.
Fascinating stuff….

 

I have wondered for some time why more work hasn't been done with bacteriophages as a therapeutic agent, since antibiotic resistance is such a big thing now. Maybe something is being done that I am not aware of, but it would be nice to have a plan for dealing with resistant infections.

 

Not to worry folks. The FDA uses only the most scientific methods when dealing with the Covid-19 virus, and when and if to administer the vaccines to people. Just this morning CBS reported that the FDA advisors will "vote" on if booster shots should be administered or not. That is "SO scientific". I wonder, if that doesn't work, will they get really scientific and flip a coin?

 

My wife got a note from her ophthalmologist that he will not see her again if she's not vaccinated.......he and his staff are fully vaccinated.

 

Ya gotta shrug your shoulders or maybe hope he comes down with E.D. but right or wrong it’s pretty much his option. Being fully vaccinated doesn’t stop the spread of this particular virus but if he believes he, his staff and other vaccinated patients are somehow safer then it’s his prerogative to do whatever he wants to do.