Sign up for our free email list here.

It’s clear from vintage medical literature that “virus” meant something completely different a century ago than it does now.

Today, “virus” means a type of microorganism. A hundred years ago, “virus” meant a slurry of secretions from humans, animals or plants. When this slurry was injected by vaccination to prevent or cure disease—which it often was—it was sometimes called “vaccine virus.”

Sometime in the 20th century, the use of virus (secretion slurry) to make vaccines was replaced with the use of virus (microorganisms) to make vaccines—and because it was done with word replacement, today, almost no one knows or remembers it happened.

Virus: The vintage definition

In this major 1919 research study on the spread of Spanish flu (1), virus (secretion slurry) was collected from hospitalized flu patients, and sprayed into the eyes, noses and throats of the research subjects, in an (unsuccessful) attempt to spread the flu. The author described the process for acquiring virus in nauseating detail:

Medical and quartermaster corps men, United States Army Hospital Number 4, Fort Porter, New York. 1918.

“Then we proceeded to transfer the virus obtained from cases of the disease; that is, we collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way: The patient with fever, in bed, has a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solution, using perhaps 5 ce., which is allowed to run into this tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous membrane of the throat. We place these swabs with the material in a bottle with glass beads, and add all the material obtained in the tray. This is the stuff we transfer to our volunteers.”

Smallpox vaccines were made from virus (secretion slurry) collected from diseased cows and horses. In the 1895 booklet Vaccination, a Curse, (2), author C.W. Amerige, MD, wrote:

“In the year 1798, Dr. Edward Jenner, called public attention to his theories regarding vaccination. He called them facts. […] Jenner laid special stress upon the necessity of using only the cowpox virus. He also announced there was no such thing as spontaneous cowpox, as he well knew that the disease was communicated to the udders of milch cows by the filthy hands of men who had been engaged in grooming horses suffering from the disease called ‘grease;’ and it is not known the disease ever originated in any other way. It is not recognized as a constitutional bovine disease, and bulls have never been known to have it.”

“Early in the experiments of Jenner, we find that two of his patients died of pulmonary consumption. […] Jenner only proclaimed the fact that these patients did not die of smallpox. […] These facts however become very significant when we learn the true nature of the horse disease called ‘grease,’ which is the origin of the true Jennerian virus. In fact Jenner frequently used the virus just as it was taken from the heels of the horse […]”

Dr. Schreiber of San Augustine giving a typhoid inoculation at a rural school, San Augustine County, Texas. April, 1943. John Vachon for the United States Farm Security Administration (Public domain)

Etymology sources, like this one, commonly describe the archaic meaning of “virus” as a kind of poisonous or infectious liquid or substance—without mentioning it was often made with human secretions like mucus and saliva, and used to prevent and cure disease. I didn’t see a single medical dictionary that mentioned that fact.

Virus was also collected from apparently healthy people and used to make vaccines. In Vaccination, a Curse (2), Dr. Amerige described a situation where virus was taken from an apparently healthy child, and used to vaccinate others:

“The ‘Rivalta cases’ in Italy, are well known. In those cases, the virus was taken from an infant supposed to be healthy. From this one child, forty-six children were vaccinated, and one of the forty-six furnished lymph, with which seventeen others were vaccinated. Of the total number of sixty-three children, forty-four were infected with syphilis, and in turn communicated it to their mothers and nurses.”

“The first visualization of polio virus” 1953 Libr. of Congress

Virus: The brave new definition

Today, the medical definition of “virus” varies, and tends to include a lot of hedge words like “usually” and “generally,” as in this example from the Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing (3):

“Specifically, a term for a group of infectious agents that with few exceptions are capable of passing through fine filters that retain most bacteria, are usually not visible through the light microscope, lack independent metabolism, and are incapable of growth or reproduction apart from living cells. […] The complete particle usually contains either DNA or RNA, not both, and is usually covered by a protein shell or capsid that protects the nucleic acid. They range in size from 15 nm up to several hundred nm. Classification of viruses depends on physiochemical characteristics of virions as well as on mode of transmission, host range, symptomatology, and other factors.”

Rather than hedging, some sources describe viruses as exceptionally ‘diverse’ instead, as in this example from Nature Education (4):

“We know that viruses are quite diverse. Unlike all other biological entities, some viruses, like poliovirus, have RNA genomes and some, like herpesvirus, have DNA genomes. Further, some viruses (like influenza virus) have single-stranded genomes, while others (like smallpox) have double-stranded genomes. Their structures and replication strategies are equally diverse. Viruses, do, however, share a few features: First, they generally are quite small, with a diameter of less than 200 nanometers (nm). Second, they can replicate only within a host cell. Third, no known virus contains ribosomes, a necessary component of a cell's protein-making translational machinery.”

After reading the descriptions of viruses, I’m left wondering why such incredibly diverse microorganisms—with different types of genomes, genome forms, structures, replication strategies, physiochemical characteristics, modes of transmission, host ranges, symptomatologies and ‘other factors’—are all lumped together under the label “virus.”

“Herpesvirus B particles.” Credit: Centers for Disease Control

Maybe a more accurate definition of virus would be, “Some kind of microbe that we don’t know what it is, and we think it might cause disease.” It’s no surprise that the legitimacy of virology has increasingly been called into question.

Out with the old definition, in with the new

As for exactly when and how a new type of microorganism allegedly came to be identified, proven to cause disease, and named “virus,” I couldn’t really pin that down. According to a 2021 paper in the Encyclopedia of Virology (5), after a researcher filtered sap in 1898 and found it continued to be infectious, the definition of “virus” evolved organically:

“The term ‘virus’ (Latin for ‘poison’), previously used for any infectious agent or toxin, became ever more frequently used for this novel type of pathogen […] “

Rare “Ebola is real” memorabilia. At the time of the ‘pandemic’ a campaign was launched in the ‘hardest hit’ areas of Africa to convince the public that people were dropping dead in the streets. Local celebrities promoted it, and local bands wrote songs about it.

Okay…but what happened to the other kind of virus—the kind made from human and animal secretions, and used to make vaccines? Did the practice of using it suddenly disappear because a few researchers claimed to have discovered a new microorganism that caused disease in tobacco plants?

If a new type of microorganism was discovered and proven to cause disease, why would anyone give it the same name as something else that had been commonly referenced in medical literature for decades? To illustrate how nonsensical it is, consider these similar situations:

With the help of a powerful new microscope, Bob discovered a previously unknown microorganism in coffee that acted like supercharged caffeine. He named this new microorganism a “coffee.”
After Professor Heather invented the smelloscope (from the TV show Futurama), she discovered a brand-new type of super-pungent microorganism in Limburger cheese. She named it a “Limburger cheese.”

It’s actually even more nonsensical than that because according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we’re surrounded by viruses—they’ve been found “everywhere on Earth” and outnumber bacteria 10-to-1. So, it would be as if:

Page from an unknown early book about bacteria c. 1880.

Bob discovered a previously unknown microorganism in coffee that acted like supercharged caffeine…then he found the same microorganism in chocolate, licorice, and spiced rum…but he still named the new microorganism a “coffee.”
Professor Heather’s smelloscope discovered a pungent new microorganism in Limburger cheese…then she found the same stinky bug in broccoli, spoiled milk and fish sauce…but she still named it a “Limburger cheese.”

The average human contains 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria…and 20 to 60 pounds of virus?

According to the NIH, the Human Microbiome Project determined that bacteria outnumber human cells in the body by 10 to 1, and a 200 pound person contains 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria:

“The human body contains trillions of microorganisms — outnumbering human cells by 10 to 1. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of the body's mass (in a 200-pound adult, that’s 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria), but play a vital role in human health.”

The NIH also says the world contains 10-times more viruses than bacteria:

“A virus is a small collection of genetic code, either DNA or RNA, surrounded by a protein coat. A virus cannot replicate alone. Viruses must infect cells and use components of the host cell to make copies of themselves. Often, they kill the host cell in the process, and cause damage to the host organism. Viruses have been found everywhere on Earth. Researchers estimate that viruses outnumber bacteria by 10 to 1.”

That means viruses, if they exist as a unique microorganism, might outnumber human cells in the body by 100 to 1. That’s enough viruses to keep vaccine developers in the black for centuries.

Apparently, the Human Microbiome Project doesn’t have much interest in viruses, even though its purpose is to study microorganisms in the body. It apparently has never counted or weighed them, so I don’t know how many pounds of viruses might be in the average human. They say the bacteria in the body weigh 2 to 6 pounds, and there are 10 times more viruses than bacteria, so do people contain 20 to 60 pounds of viruses? Sure, they’re tiny—but maybe they’re heavy for their size.

How many pounds of viruses does the average person contain? Realistically, the answer could be zero.

*******

NOTES:

(1) EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE MODE OF SPREAD OF INFLUENZA, MILTON J. ROSENAU, M.D., JAMA. 1919; 73(5):311-313. doi: 10.1001/jama.1919.02610310005002 (Link)

(2) Vaccination, a Curse, by C.W. Amerige, M.D., 18 Vernon Street, Springfield, Mass., 1895 (Link)

(4) Wessner, D. R. (2010) The Origins of Viruses. Nature Education 3(9):37 (Link)

(5) Kuhn J. H. (2021). Virus Taxonomy. Encyclopedia of Virology, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.21231-4 (Link)

Writing

When the definition of "virus" changed; plus, how many pounds of virus in the typical human?