Let's define "Virus"

There are many novel definitions floating around... do they make sense?

“COVID Confusion” Part 2:
— Let’s Define “Virus”

UPDATED INTRO:

If we are to decide whether viruses exist or not, we first have to agree on a definition of what a virus (purportedly) is, according to virologists, and the popular fable told to us, and our parents and grandparents for the last 100+ years.

I agree that this may seem, to my enlightened readers, a bit like asking a Unicorn-chaser to describe a typical specimen. 🦄

However, according to virologists, viruses are real, and they have certain properties.

Yet, people are coming up with many novel & creative definitions for “Virus”.
Let's try to pin this down.

Here’s what people are saying:

• “A Virus is a Process”
  e.g.,
  > Nick Hudson of PANDA, email to Ricardo Maarman and Faiez Kirsten
  > The Economist, “Viruses have big impacts on ecology and evolution as well as human health”, unsigned essay. 8/20/2020

• “A virus is not pathogenic” (pathogenic = disease causing)
  > Teller Report

• “A virus is pathogenic sometimes, under certain conditions”
  examples:
  > Peter Duesberg & David Rasnick (“HIV is a harmless Passenger Virus”)
  > Larry Palevsky (viruses must be “turned on” to cause disease)

• “Viruses are not contagious”
  > Jeff Green

• A virus is a “poisonous substance”
  > Reader of my blog
  
  …And perhaps the oddest of them all:

• Viruses exist and cause disease, but we need to treat the terrain

  > Zach Bush [1] [2]

The problem with all of these is that they are attempting to change the well established definition, apparently to suit some purpose.

For the last 100 years, we have been told that viruses are THINGS (microscopic particles), and that they cause disease, and are transmissible, person to person.

These are by definition.

Agreement on definitions is prerequisite for communication

When we communicate, the speaker and the listener must agree upon the meanings of the symbols (words) exchanged. If we don’t agree, then it’s like two people speaking using different languages.

I can’t expect you to know that when I say “Dog Kennels”, I really mean “Mattress”, …unless by prior agreement.

Figure: In this Monty Python sketch, the newlywed husband wants to purchase a mattress. Unfortunately, he keeps asking Mr. Lambert, the salesman, for “Dog Kennels”. Husband and Lambert do not agree with the meaning of the words exchanged. Confusion ensues. COMMUNICATION FAILS.

What are some common definitions of “Virus” from authoritative sources?

There are several definitions floating around:

"A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell." 

Harvey Lodish, et al.,  Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000: 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6

I like this, except it does not say anything about pathogenicity or transmissibility. Also, is a parasite always harmful to the host? This is the story we have been told about viruses for 100+ years.

Then there's this:

"Small intracellular obligate parasites, which contain either a RNA or DNA genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat." 

Medical Microbiology, 4th edition, 1996

An “obligate parasite” (or holoparasite) is a parasitic organism that cannot complete its life-cycle without exploiting a suitable host.

Despite the addition of “obligate”, I still have, essentially, the same comments as on the first (no discussion of pathogenicity or transmissibility.

A precise working definition of “Virus” used by Dr. Mark Bailey. (NOTE WELL: By inclusion here, I am NOT suggesting that Dr. Bailey is promoting Germ Theory, Clearly he is not. See the article for context.)

The best one so far I’ve found is used by Christine Massey and Mark Bailey:

"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure" 
— Dr. Mark Bailey

Important Update 9/11/2022

I realize this is something I need to make very clear:

This definition which Christine Massey uses, which she attributes to Mark Bailey, I do not believe comes from a single published source. This is because every published definition for Virus is lacking.

I believe this is a FUNCTIONAL definition of a so-called “virus”, a precise definition of we have been told by virologists all of our lives.

I am not saying that either Christine Massey or Mark Bailey actually believes in these things.

I myself have made a minor tweak to the definition (adding, “that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease,“) for my own purposes.

I have chosen to use (a variation of) this definition, because, IMHO, this is the best descriptive, functional definition of a “virus” which I have seen.

Back to the action…

Great! Now we know:

a) the size (smaller than a cell),
b) that viruses cannot reproduce on their own,
c) they cause disease, and
d) are transmissible, via
e) common mode of exposure. (e.g., breathing in exhaled droplets, as opposed to bizarre artificial lab models, commonly used).

I just want to make a couple of tweaks:

"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."

My additions address the purported mode of disease causation (cell necrosis), and a bit to clear up the COVID Confusion about “asymptomatic disease”.

When I refer to viruses, this is the definition I will be using.

I hope this is helpful!

---

COVID CONFUSION Series:

Part 1: There is no “IT”.

I got sick, therefore "IT" exists!