Are viruses alive?

Interesting question and some interesting answers also.

As far as a virus is concerned I think they are in a gray area, between living and not. They cant reproduce on their own, but life finds a way even if it involves using other cells or creatures to accomplish the task.

There are numerous examples of life forms that require assistance from other living creatures to reproduce. For example, plants need to be pollinated. This is done by birds, bees, and the wind. Without it the plant can not reproduce. The fig tree needs a wasp to land on a budding fig and get stuck there. The wasps body is consumed by the bud creating the fruit which contains the seeds of the next generation. No wasp, no seeds, and so on.

Using the same argument some use for life, you could say a fire is alive. It consumes fuel which it uses to sustain itself through chemical reaction. It requires oxygen. Extremes in temperature can be detrimental.

Returning then to the virus, I think a better question is, "Is the virus active/animated?" If the virus is capable of contaminating other cells it is active and can replicate. If the virus is incapable of contaminating other cells it is inactive and incapable of replication. To me, this is the virus equivalent of alive or dead.

The question of "alive" or "not" lies in the dna if you ask me, but its been a daunting question for a while what constitutes dead or alive.

To consider something "alive", they need to have all the specific dna base pairs that make up life.

In terms of a virus, they have like 20% (throwing a random low #) of the required base pairs to be considered "alive", but technically aren't because they don't have all base pairs.

Listen, I can totally be wrong, I'm just a plumber. But from my SIMPLE understanding, that's what I know.

A human cell has over 20,000 genes in it.

A bacterium cell has over 7,000 genes in it.

But a single SaRS-COVID-2 virus has about 15 genes in it.

But then again, a Girus can have hundreds of thousands of genes (like the mamovirus). But again, there's on average more virus', like the Sputnik virus, that doesn't even have the required genes to replicate itself in its host victim.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Returning then to the virus, I think a better question is, "Is the virus active/animated?" If the virus is capable of contaminating other cells it is active and can replicate. If the virus is incapable of contaminating other cells it is inactive and incapable of replication. To me, this is the virus equivalent of alive or dead.

Interesting take. Makes me wonder if computer virus' are alive or not haha

Sorry in advance, English isn’t my mother tongue.
To my understanding, there is not a scientific agreement about viruses, they are considered to be at the limit of life, like zombies if you like. For that reason antibiotics are useles with them, because can’t be “killed”, just innactivated, unlike bacterias. If you want to explain viruses to the general population can’t get philosophical, so is better explained in simply terms, like matter is never destroyed, but people never get to philosophical when speaking, so you just say “that tree was destroyed by fire”.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis


So, you're using semantics to prove covid is a parasite?

This is seriously fascinating. You're using science to prove how much you don't believe in science

you must be proud. Did you just come from the Kindergarten class where you berated the kids for not knowing string theory? Seriously, you are THE turd in the punchbowl.

I even stated several times in the OP that I don't know the answers, I'm asking. I know almost nothing about Viruses other than what I have heard over the years. So I decided to come here and ask others. Aside from your idiotic reply, I have learned some interesting things. Perhaps you can go to the pound and find a friend. You sound like you need something that's lacking in your life.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

There are numerous examples of life forms that require assistance from other living creatures to reproduce.

not long after I got out of the Air Force, I told my wife we were going into the puppy raising business. I wanted a basset hound, so we got one with papers. A Tri colored male, named him Fred. (super original) he was super chill, great with the kids. About a year later we got a lemon colored female. She was a bitch in every sense of the word. I was the only one who could be around her. When she went in heat, I put them together and the male was tickled pink (literally) to get close. He didn't know what pleasures he was missing, he was blissfully ignorant. I went to the vet to ask what to do in that situation, and he said you sometimes have to "help" them. I cluelessly asked what that meant, and he motioned helping him stick it in. I laughed and said, NO! If he can't figure this out on his own, I'm not sure I want puppies from him. We let him try a bit more, same results. We ended up moving before the next heat, since the male wasn't fixed, he would get out and roam. He roamed too close to a car and lost. I then gave the female away since she wasn't a family pet. needless to day, $900 later, I had nothing but vet bills to show for my business venture.

sorry to veer off topic, but your post reminded me of that, and like seeing something shiny, I'm easily distracted.

a reply to: CafeconLeche1

thanks for the reply. In looking into this, I'm finding conflicting data, as you suggested. But the zombie theory makes it make more sense, so thanks for that. BTW, your screen name is the same as one of my favorite cigars from Drew Estates. First choice is a Tabak Red eye.

a reply to: network dude

It's a pretty good question and I think you've got to consider things a bit differently when talking about viruses and being alive.

Personally I'm in the parasite camp when it comes to their definition. And that's because they get the cell to do the work. They invade cells and get the cell to to the hard work of rearing more virus.

At this time of year there is a migratory bird that arrives here and does exactly the same thing. It's a Channel Billed Cuckoo. It is a parasitic bird and it does exactly the same thing, sort of, as a virus.

They invade the nests of other birds and lay an egg, frequently Crows. The Crows then do the hard work of rearing this egg into a new Cuckoo. It's parasitic behavior.

So to answer your question I'd say, yes alive, uber basic but alive none the less.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: LABTECH767

thanks for a great answer. Now, can a virus die?

It can be rendered inert by UV light for example that will break up it's genetic material or it's protein sheath (the outer layer of the virus) can break down in certain environments but otherwise so long as the environment it is in is not damaging to it in any way it can sit and wait for a very long time, it's not really alive so when they say kill a virus or kill's virus what they mean is that it render's it harmless or non infectious.

But like I said there is still argument about the definition of life with one camp arguing that since virus though purely parasitic and unable to self replicate are actually a form of life.

So I guess it really just depends what camp you choose to be in there, the majority of scientists will say though that NO a virus is not a living organism it does however span the gap between living and non living organic structures existing somewhere in the grey area between truly alive and truly inert (not alive).

a reply to: network dude

Oh, simmer down

This thread didn't happen in a vacuum. I've been reading along (here and in several other threads), and it's reasonable to assume that people (not just you) are trying to make a case for Ivermectin

And in the end, this is all about the theory that Ivermectin could be used to treat Covid. that aspect of this discussion is better suited to other threads, but it is the driving force behind this one. I hope we can all learn something from this talk. thanks in advance.

You are trying to find a way - using science - to figure out a rational explanation for why we should be using Ivermectin. You even asked that question in a separate thread

But the science, so far - has been clear:

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

The hype around ivermectin - based on the strength of belief in the research - has driven large numbers of people around the world to use it.

Campaigners for the drug point to a number of scientific studies and often claim this evidence is being ignored or covered up. But a review by a group of independent scientists has cast serious doubt on that body of research.

The BBC can reveal that more than a third of 26 major trials of the drug for use on Covid have serious errors or signs of potential fraud. None of the rest show convincing evidence of ivermectin's effectiveness.

Dr Kyle Sheldrick, one of the group investigating the studies, said they had not found "a single clinical trial" claiming to show that ivermectin prevented Covid deaths that did not contain "either obvious signs of fabrication or errors so critical they invalidate the study".

Major problems included:

The same patient data being used multiple times for supposedly different people
Evidence that selection of patients for test groups was not random
Numbers unlikely to occur naturally
Percentages calculated incorrectly
Local health bodies unaware of the studies

It's been repeated over and over. Still, many don't want to believe the science, they think it's all a lie. So, people are coming up with their own science to disprove existing science

I understand that you were only asking questions. But, at this point - why is that?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

is this not science?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Keywords: ivermectin, prophylaxis, treatment, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2

I am not a doctor. But I have been able to realize that science has been hijacked by douchebags. In the past, there would be peer reviewed studies on this and little ambiguity would exist. I am interested in learning if Ivermectin could help with Covid. This report seems to indicate it might. If it was from the Gateway Pundit, I'd likely not be as interested, but from the NIH, well, I heard those guys were the one's to ask.

But you have an agenda, apparently to be "that guy", and you do it well. If all you want to do is show how much of an ass you can be, I'd say your work here is done. If you would like to join in the conversation and pretend you have something interesting to say, go nuts.

a reply to: LABTECH767

In my earlier conversation, I thought the prospect of the covid virus being 'alive', made it possible it could be a parasite. It does seem to fit the definition. So to use a drug that targets parasites, sort of seems logical. If the virus was not 'alive', I'm not sure how that would fit in. And again, not knowing much about this aspect of this, I asked, and so far, have gotten some great answers that sparked more digging.

What is your position on fire? It can't be 'alive' in my thinking, but it sort of does fit in with that definition in some ways. If nothing else, it makes you think.

again, thanks for the reply.

originally posted by: CafeconLeche1
Sorry in advance, English isn’t my mother tongue.
To my understanding, there is not a scientific agreement about viruses, they are considered to be at the limit of life, like zombies if you like. For that reason antibiotics are useles with them, because can’t be “killed”, just innactivated, unlike bacterias. If you want to explain viruses to the general population can’t get philosophical, so is better explained in simply terms, like matter is never destroyed, but people never get to philosophical when speaking, so you just say “that tree was destroyed by fire”.

It really is very simple, but too complex to completely understand.

When we look at the foundation of life, all living things have a starting place. Identifying that place is not always very easy. There are so many factors that come into play, energy, matter, light, darkness, water, wind, temperature, etc. All play a role in the life cycle. We attribute characteristics to entities and use the characteristics to name it.

According to the Bible, man was given the task of naming everything on this planet. It is the one thing that we have done well. We have a name for everything that we see, feel, think, or hear. If we don't have a name for it, we give it a name.

The issue arises when we have to deal with something we can't name, because we can't see it or sense it. We make the assumption that if we can't process it or interact with it, it is dead, does not exist, or never existed. Where the truth may be as simple as, we don't see it because though it exist, our ability to see it or sense it is limited to a particular range.

I am doing a lousy job of trying to explain what I mean.

For instance, we can only see or hear within certain spectrums of light and sound. We only know that some things exist outside of those ranges, because we can witness other lifeforms on our planet react or respond to them.

I think we have to accept that there is much more around us then we can process or even imagine. I think the butterfly effect is real. I just think it often affects changes that are so small ,and so slow, in our time frame, they we don't recognize it.

I am still battling Sahara dust in my Florida home. I keep asking myself, what else came with the wind that brought all that sand from the Sahara, that I cannot see. I think we don't give ourselves enough credit for how much we are an integral part of life, and life forms, on our planet. I also think we give ourselves to much credit for the value we think we bring to this planet.

The planet would thrive without us. We on the other hand could make ourselves extinct, by wiping out just one species, that we think of as a nuisance, undesirable, or unnecessary. We know so much less than we think we know. This further limits us, because there is likely much knowledge available, that we never give ourselves a chance at knowing.

If microorganisms have the power of life and death, and live in a hidden world, beyond what we can see without the aide of a microscope, what else is out there?

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

for a plumber, you have a better grasp on this than most. I know hot's on the left, cold's on the right, sh!t rolls downhill, and payday is on Friday. Not enough to take the test, but it's a start.

a reply to: network dude

But I have been able to realize that science has been hijacked by douchebags.

I'm sure it happens, and often. Here is a bit from one of the gentlemen associated with the study you've posted:

One of the authors of the meta-analysis, statistician Andrew Bryant at Newcastle University, UK, says that his team corresponded with Elgazzar before publishing the work to clarify some data. “We had no reason to doubt the integrity of [Professor] Elgazzar,” he said in an e-mail. He added that in a pandemic setting, no one can reanalyse all of the raw data from patient records when writing a review. Bryant went on to say that his group will revise the conclusion if investigations find the study to be unreliable. However, even if the study is removed, the meta-analysis would still show that ivermectin causes a major reduction in deaths from COVID-19, he says.

You need to read the whole article to see what I'm driving at. People pick up on what they want to believe, and don't really want to factor in anything else. It's a process:

The study’s withdrawal from a preprint platform deals a blow to the anti-parasite drug’s chances as a COVID treatment, researchers say.

Although the jury is still out on ivermectin, many say the retraction speaks to the difficulty of assessing research during a pandemic. “I personally have lost all faith in the results of [ivermectin] trials published to date,” says Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia who helped Lawrence to analyse the Elgazzar paper. It’s not yet possible to assess whether ivermectin works against COVID-19 because the data currently available are not of sufficiently high quality, he says, adding that he is reading other ivermectin papers in his spare time, looking for signs of fraud or other problems.

Chaccour and others studying ivermectin say that proof of whether the drug is effective against COVID-19 rests on a handful of large, ongoing studies, including a trial in Brazil with more than 3,500 participants. By the end of 2021, says Zoni, around 33,000 people will have participated in some kind of ivermectin trial.

So, who knows? It may turn out there's something there - but right now?

This is what concerns me most - and don't take this personally because it's not directed at you. If most of the science community is telling us not to take it, that it's not proven, and that there hasn't been time to gather enough data to approve prescribing it - what exactly is the issue? Why go with whoever tells you what you want to hear and discount the rest?

You'll want to tell me (maybe) that I'm being naive, but trusting one source over many as an exception to the rule doesn't prove anything. It's a choice - and it's based on desire and mistrust

But you have an agenda, apparently to be "that guy", and you do it well. If all you want to do is show how much of an ass you can be, I'd say your work here is done. If you would like to join in the conversation and pretend you have something interesting to say, go nuts.

Rude boy

a reply to: network dude

Maybe the word should more accurately be 'persist' or 'endure' rather than 'survive'..?

Good thread - I've wondered about this question many times.

a reply to: network dude

I have some sympathy for a pantheistic-type view of consciousness - I think that consciousness precedes matter, and that therefore it is primal, and therefore everything material is conscious to some degree. If you see it as a continuum of consciousness, then everything gets a little easier to handle. Viruses have a proto-awareness, slightly more complex than the awareness of a molecule, an atom, an electron, etc. But it certainly doesn't have any sense of self, I don't believe, it just exists as a dim awareness of a protocol, a set of coded instructions, which it pointedly executes, whenever & wherever conditions are favourable.

It isn't even debatable that virus's are LIVING ORGANISMS.

Being in a family of doctors all my life taught me a lot about biology, animals, bacteria, virii, anti-biotics drugs and medicines of all kinds, microscopes etc, etc.

Many vaccines are made with KILLED VIRUS. You can't kill something that was never alive, so.....

Of course when well known political trolls get involved in discussions like this, all science is out the window and all of the above is subject to their suddenly expert interpretation, or better yet, re-interpretation.

a reply to: network dude
A virus is basically a section of cell program that has the right chemical "hooks" to insert itself into a host Live cells program. That host live cell then runs its defective program to create more "program sections", viruses that are released and simply float about like mines until they bump into another cell that has matching hooks and it starts all over.

The virus doesn't "seek" a new cell or move anywhere on its own, or collect any sustenance (food) or emit any waste and therefore creates no energy at all.

Could something that has no energy and creates no energy be alive? It's only a set of instructions specific to a certain cell type floating around out there. A human virus cannot infect a fish for example - wrong "hooks".

I think the fascinating part is to ask how or why they started... how or why some cell somewhere "decided" to create these things. To create that intricate a piece of "programming" for a cell can't be easy, yet the cell has the major mechanisms to do what the little virus instruction set tells it to, and that little instruction set was created by a living cell with some "difficulty" - why?

No, I don't think the virus is alive, I think it is a sort of "weapon" created by a living cell to launch against other cells, the weapon is not alive, the cell that made it is, but WHY?

a reply to: network dude

They are bound to survive only by their hosts. They can't live or reproduce independently of a host. That's why they're different, and not "alive."

Instead of focusing on what you bolded, look at the entirety of conditions.

Viruses can "survive" extreme conditions, but can't reproduce until they have a host, which is why they are not "living organisms," or alive.

Bottom line: Viruses are not alive.