Nate Serg

Mar 22, 202136 min read

MAGIC SHOWS

Updated: Jul 31, 2021

When you don’t have the virus, which was initially only available in Wuhan, we can make a synthetic gene [i.e. using computer modelling] to simulate the virus genome. We did that very quickly.” - Opportunistic Positioned Beneficiary of the Scam, Christen Drosden - NO VIRUS - from the horses mouth. He is also the owner of the Berlin biotech company TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, which produces Corona PCR tests. Did Drosten design this PCR protocol in order to trigger a “case-demic”?

"SARS-COV-2" was stitched

The original genome for "SARS-COV-2" was stitched together in a computer based on the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from one patient. There was no attempt to spin/filter the sample to separate a "virus" from everything else. They did not culture a "virus" and then sequence the genome from that toxic soup. They took directly from the BALF of one patient and determined a "virus" based solely on that:

"To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, WE COLLECTED BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID (BALF) AND PERFORMED DEEP META-TRANSCRIPTOMIC SEQUENCING. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. TOTAL RNA WAS EXTRACTED FROM 200 μl OF BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4,6,7,8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) HAD A HIGH ABUNDANCE AND WAS CLOSELY RELATED TO A BAT SARS-like CORONAVIRUS (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). THE GENOME SEQUENCE OF THIS VIRUS, AS WELL AS ITS TERMINI, WERE DETERMINED AND CONFIRMED BY REVERSE-TRANSCRIPTION PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947."

Keep in mind that there would be billions of micro and nanoparticles within the BALF, including the identical to "viruses" in nearly every way exosomes. Without purification/isolation, there is no way that they could determine the "SARS-COV-2" genome they constructed came from one source. They did not even attempt EM images as there was nothing physically present for them to image.

The researchers tried to hide this massive error by referring to another study as backup proof:

"These genomic and clinical similarities to SARS, as well as its high abundance in clinical samples, provides evidence FOR AN ASSOCIATION between WHCV and the ongoing outbreak of respiratory disease in Wuhan and across the world. ALTHOUGH THE ISOLATION OF THE VIRUS FROM ONLY A SINGLE PATIENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT IT CAUSED THESE RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, OUR FINDINGS HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATED IN FURTHER PATIENTS IN A SEPARATE STUDY 29."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

There are two problems here:

1. They did not isolate a "virus" from one patient. They created a sequence from one patient's BALF. Two completely different things.

2. The other paper they referenced admitted that they did not prove a "virus" either:

"The ASSOCIATION between 2019-nCoV and the disease HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS TO FULFIL THE KOCH’S POSTULATES TO ESTABLISH A CAUSATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MICROORGANISM AND A DISEASE."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

This article further explains why this genome taken from BALF is a problem and gives a little history on the equally shoddy "SARS-COV-1" and other reference genomes which were built upon to create "SARS-COV-2:"

"The Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome (MN908947.1 ). This has been updated many times. However, MN908947.1 was the first genetic sequence describing the alleged COVID 19 etiologic agent (SARS-CoV-2).

All subsequent claims, tests, treatments, statistics, vaccine development and resultant policies ARE BASED UPON THIS SEQUENCE. If the tests for this novel virus don’t identify anything capable of causing illness in human beings, the whole COVID 19 narrative is nothing but a charade.

The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively PIECED THE SARS-CoV-2 GENETIC SEQUENCE TOGETHER BY MATCHING FRAGMENTS FOUND IN SAMPLES WITH OTHER, PREVIOUSLY DISCOVERED, GENETIC SEQUENCES. From the gathered material they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus (SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found 29,891-base-pair which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

THEY HAD TO USE DE NOVO ASSEMBLY BECAUSE THEY HAD NO PRIORI KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORRECT SEQUENCE OR ORDER OF THOSE FRAGMENTS. Quite simply, the WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th January is false.

The Wuhan team used 40 rounds of RT-qPCR amplification to match fragments of cDNA (complimentary DNA constructed from sampled RNA fragments) with the published SARS coronavirus genome (SARS-CoV). UNFORTUNATELY IT ISN'T CLEAR HOW ACCURATE THE ORIGINAL SARS-CoV GENOME IS EITHER.

In 2003 a team of researchers from from Hong Kong studied 50 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). THEY TOOK SAMPLES FROM 2 OF THESE PATIENTS AND DEVELOPED A CULTURE IN FETAL MONKEY LIVER CELLS.

They created 30 clones of the genetic material they found. Unable to find evidence of any other known virus, IN JUST ONE OF THESE CLONED SAMPLES THEY FOUND GENETIC SEQUENCES OF “UNKNOWN ORIGIN.”

EXAMINING THESE UNKNOWN RNA SEQUENCES THEY FOUND 57% MATCH TO BOVINE CORONAVIRUS AND MURINE HEPATITIS VIRUS AND DEDUCED IT WAS OF THE FAMILY CORONAVIRIDAE. Considering these sequences to suggest a newly discovered SARS-CoV virus (new discoveries being ambrosia for scientists), they designed RT-PCR primers to test for this novel virus. The researchers stated:

Primers for detecting the new virus were designed for RT-PCR detection of this human pneumonia-associated coronavirus genome in clinical samples. Of the 44 nasopharyngeal samples available from the 50 SARS patients, 22 HAD EVIDENCE OF HUMAN PNEUMONIA-ASSOCIATED CORONAVIRUS RNA.”

Half of the tested patients, who all had the same symptoms, tested positive for this new alleged virus. NO ONE KNOWS WHY THE OTHER HALF TESTED NEGATIVE FOR THIS NOVEL SARS-CoV VIRUS. The question wasn’t asked.

This supposed virus had just a 57% sequence match to allegedly known coronavirus. THE OTHER 43% WAS JUST “THERE.” Sequenced data was produced and recorded as a new genome as GenBank Accession No. AY274119.

The Wuhan researchers subsequently found an 79.6% sequence match to AY274119 and therefore called it a novel strain of SARS-CoV (2019-nCoV – eventually renamed SARS-CoV-2). NO ONE, AT ANY STAGE OF THIS PROCESS, HAD PRODUCED ANY ISOLATED, PURIFIED SAMPLES OF ANY VIRUS. ALL THEY HAD WERE PERCENTAGE SEQUENCE MATCHES TO OTHER PERCENTAGE SEQUENCE MATCHES."

https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/?fbclid=IwAR1JmBuKTGIJA3hhHlwZ9EtbvtRcyw6-_wkd5PfyXxgGWMBRJ_9vQMouAjo

Everything relating to "SARS-COV-2" stems from a fraudulent genome stitched together from the BALF of one patient. They didn't even attempt a cell culture, considered the "gold standard" proof of "virus isolation." This whole mess came from an imaginary set of letters in a darabase.

___________________________________________________________________

Is complete purification/isolation of a "virus" even possible?

When getting down to the size of nanoparticles and the expected billions of identical particles at that level, it would be logical to assume that completely separating the exact particle a Virologist is looking for from everything else in the sample is downright impossible. Thus, asking Virologists to completely purify and isolate the suspected "viral" particle from an unaltered sample from a sick patient and prove its pathogenicity in a realistic way may seem like a Herculean task and an unfair demand.

However, this is the corner Virology and Germ Theory has backed itself into. In order to claim a particular particle is a "virus" and can cause the symptoms of disease associated with it, logic dictates that it must be completely separated from all other potential variables/factors in order to prove that particular particle is indeed the cause. This is the only logical way to show that no other particles in the sample could have been the cause and in the case of genomics, that the DNA/RNA sequences belong to only that particular particle which is believed to be a "virus."

We can find out if complete purification/isolation is possible by looking at exosome research and the methods used. "Viruses" are considered exosomes in every sense of the word as they are identical in size, shape, and appearance. The methods used to purify/isolate exosomes are the same ones which are supposed to be used for "viruses" but which are never done, especially in the absence of toxic cell culture processes. These methods are considered the est available purification/isolation methods today.

Let's look at a few of them briefly:

ULTRACENTRIFUGATION:

"THE CURRENT GOLDEN STANDARD FOR EXOSOME ISOLATION IS ULTRACENTRIFUGATION 58. As known, this technique exploits the particle movement principle due to gravitational acceleration in an inertial field 59. Differential and density gradient ultracentrifugation are among the most commonly used ultracentrifugation methods for exosome isolation 60."

"During differential ultracentrifugation, exosomes are separated based on their density and size. Thus, CONTAMINATION FROM OTHER VESICLES, MOLECULES OR PARTICLES THAT OVERLAP IN THESE PARAMETERS IS EXPECTED. To REDUCE the presence of cell debris and large vesicles, cleaning steps are needed before pelleting the exosomes."

"It should be noted that THE g‐FORCE USED during ultracentrifugation protocols HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE PURITY AND YIELD OF EXOSOMES."

"However, as it has been mentioned, THIS METHOD IS NOT SPECIFIC AND CONTAMINATION WITH OTHER EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES IS UNAVOIDABLE. If the protocol is not well standardized and adapted (in terms of time and gravitational force) to the characteristics of the equipment being used, EXOSOME ISOLATION WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT, AND LOSSES WILL OCCUR INEVITABLY."

ULTRAFILTRATION:

"In this process, extracellular vesicles suspended in a solution can be separated by size or molecular weight. Usually, different forces are applied to make them pass through (or be retained on) a selective membrane. Centrifugal force, pressure or vacuum are usually applied for ultrafiltration through a membrane that is commonly built from low protein affinity materials."

"Nevertheless, ultrafiltration, a simple protocol, IS INCAPABLE OF ISOLATING ONLY EXOSOMES, AS MICROVESICLES AND ACOUSTIC BODIES WILL ALSO BE PRESENT IN THE RESULTING PRODUCT. Moreover, LARGE AMOUNTS OF HIGHLY ABUNDANT PROTEINS, THAT MIMIC EXOSOME SIZE OR MOLECULAR WEIGHT, WILL ALSO BE FOUND IN THE RESULTING SOLUTION. Such contamination arises from the physical limits of the procedure and the overlapping properties of the particles in the matrix being processed. Furthermore, THE EFFECTS OF THE APPLIED FORCE AND THE CONTACT WITH THE MEMBRANE ON THE EXOSOMES NEED TO BE FURTHER STUDIED. Potential deformation and exosome losses due to extrusion and membrane binding are expected 104."

PRECIPITATION:

"Most precipitation methods consist on mixing the sample, which can be either a biological fluid or cell culture medium, with a hydrophilic polymer. After mixing, the sample is incubated overnight at 4ºC and afterwards low speed centrifugation is used to precipitate the exosomes which are later resuspended in the preferred buffer for further analysis 116. Protamine, sodium acetate, and organic solvents can also be used for precipitation procedures."

"Nonetheless, LOW PURITY IS A KEY DISADVANTAGE. CONSOLATION OF NON‐VESICULAR CONTAMINANTS such as lipoproteins and ribonucleoprotein complexes, albumin, immunoglobulins and other soluble proteins IS UNAVOIDABLE 126. CONTAMINATION WITH OTHER VESICLES IS ALSO EXPECTED. Unfortunately, THIS CONTAMINATION MAY INTERFERE WITH FURTHER BIOCHEMICAL AND IMMUNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS."

CONCLUSIONS:

"EXOSOME ISOLATION REMAINS A CHALLENGE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. There is still NO CONSENSUS over which purification technique produces the best results and there is intense competition within the field. Moreover, an accurate comparison between methods cannot be easily made BECAUSE OF THE INHERENT EXOSOME COMPLEXITY."

"Moreover, CONSOLATION OF CONTAMINANTS SHOULD BE MINIMUM SINCE CONTAMINATION IS THE MOST COMMON COMPLICATION OF CURRENT ISOLATION TECHNIQUES 58. Almost invariably, CONSOLATION OF OTHER VESICLES AND NON‐VEHICULAR MOLECULES OCCURS, interfering with data comparison between research laboratories."

"Although, ultracentrifugation is currently the gold standard for exosome isolation. THERE IS NO IDEAL METHOD THAT FITS ALL PURPOSES. The selection of the procedure usually depends on the capabilities and resources of each research team and sacrifices must be made in terms of recovery, purity or work load. Moreover, DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS MAY BE COMPROMISED BY THE ISOLATION TECHNIQUE THAT IS CHOSEN 90. In this sense, the final selection of the most suitable technique for exosome isolation and purification needs to CONSIDER THE EFFECTS THAT THE METHODOLOGY MAY EXERT OVER THE SAMPLE INTEGRITY particularly for the intended final use. For instance, recovery techniques such as ultracentrifugation and filtration TEND TO RENDER A POPULATION OF “SAUCER‐LIKE” OR “DEFLATED‐FOOTBALL” SHAPED VESICLES THAT MIGHT NO LONGER BE USEFUL 157. Furthermore, the integrity of the exosomal cargo to unravel exosome‐specific functions and biomarkers should also be considered even when no apparent degradation is present 158. This is especially true for microfluidic techniques or after isolation when exosomes are stored under freezing OR OTHER HARSH CONDITIONS 159."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6972601/

The three methods discussed above all inevitably suffer from contamination as well as potential damages to the particles in the sample. The forces and methods used on these particles are unlike anything they encounter in reality. There is absolutely no way to say that the resulting particles are in the same form as they were originally in at the start of the purification/isolation process.

Purification/isolation of these particles is an impossible task. It may even be an unfair demand to ask for this. However, logic does not deal with fairness. In order to prove a "virus" exists and causes a particular disease, it must be completely purified/isolated from an unaltered sample first.

Unfortunately for Virology/Germ Theory, they have the unenviable responsibility to show that complete purification/isolation can be done. No conclusions about any particle as a "virus" can be made until this logical step occurs. To date, they have failed to do so every time.

__________________________________________________________

____________________________________________

Purification of a "virus" is impossible

It is becoming increasingly clear that purification of a "virus" is impossible. There are too many contaminants, variables, unknowns, and nanoparticles of similar shape/size to be able to say with certainty that the particles assumed to be a "virus" in a cell culture are the same ones imaged by TEM or for which the genome sequence is said to be based upon.

"EACH VIRUS POSES AN INDIVIDUAL PURIFICATION PROBLEM that is related to the properties of the virus, the nature of the host, and the CULTURE CONDITIONS. Consequently, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OUTLINE A PURIFICATION PROCEDURE THAT WILL WORK WITH EQUAL EFFECTIVENESS FOR ALL VIRUSES."

"In these terms, PURITY MEANS THE DEGREE OF FREEDOM OF VIRAL PARTICLES FROM NONVIRAL COMPONENTS, or, conversely, the extent to which viral particles show gross physicochemical homogeneity. NO SINGLE TEST IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THIS TYPE OF PURITY, but a consistent answer from each of several tests establishes the degree of homogeneity of the preparation in question and hence the reliance to be placed on analytical data and other results obtained with such a preparation."

"THE LOWER LIMIT OF CONTAMINANT DETECTABLE by either sedimentation analysis or electrophoresis IS VARIABLE, and is dependent upon the nature of the material and the circumstances of the test. As usually applied in testing virus preparations, THESE METHODS CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DETECT LESS THAN A FEW PERCENT OF CONTAMINANT (Sharp 1953). For many purposes, it is satisfactory to measure purity to this degree, but as the tools for chemical and biological analyses become sharper and sharper, it will be increasingly

necessary to remember the limitations of sedimentation and electrophoresis measurements."

"The electron microscope can be used to examine directly the physical homogeneity of a virus preparation. Under favorable conditions it is possible to detect an impurity present in a concentration of as little as 1 percent

of the virus (Williams 1954). IT IS OBVIOUS, OF COURSE, THAT IMPURITIES WILL ESCAPE DETECTION IF THEY HAVE THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE AS THE VIRUS PARTICLES, OR IF THEY ARE BELOW THE SIZE RESOLVED BY THE MICROSCOPE. Also, particles present in small number but large in mass ARE EASILY OVERLOOKED, owing to sampling difficulties (Lauffer 1951)."

"In summary, NO SINGLE CRITERION OF PURITY IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE HOMOGENEITY OF A PREPARATION OF VIRUS. This must be done by applying critically as many tests as possible (see Knight 1974)."

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-85899-4_2.pdf

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

They were testing 7 different ways of sequencing and mentioned similar findings:

"We observed STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in mapping rates to the viral genome BETWEEN FRESH AND FROZEN SAMPLES (p<0.0001 —frozen samples generally had better viral mapping) after accounting for protocol, viral load, and input amount."

"TO EVALUATE THE VARIABILITY OF VIRAL LOAD ON THE SARS-CoV-2 WGS PERFORMANCE, we compared the SARS-CoV-2, human, and bacterial reference mapping rates between low (1K copies) and high viral inputs (250K and 1M copies) across seven protocols (Fig. 2d-f). In our study design, different levels of SARS-CoV-2 viral inputs were generated using either original undiluted patient NP sample-derived RNA or a dilution from the identical higher viral load samples across all protocols (Suppl. Table 3). WE FOUND THAT HIGH VIRAL INPUTS (250K and 1M copies) HAD A HIGHER MAPPING RATE TO THE SARS-CoV-2 GENOME COMPARED TO LOW VIRAL INPUTS across all protocols as expected"

"However, at lower viral copy input, WE OBSERVED THAT SEVERAL CONSENSUS SNVs WERE NOT DETECTED. i.e., either observed at low allele frequency or completely undetected across protocols, which INDICATED A REDUCED SENSITIVITY IN SNV DETECTION WITH LOW VIRAL INPUT (Suppl. Fig. 8&9)."

"In summary, we observed that nonreproducible candidate SNVs tended to have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) they tended to have allele frequency below 80% (94% of observed nonreproducible SNVs); 2) THEY TENDED TO OCCUR WHEN USING LOW VIRAL INPUT (85% of observed nonreproducible SNVs); and 3) they were observed at local pile-up depths of less than or equal to 50 bases (66% of observed nonreproducible SNVs). OUR BENCHMARKING STUDY SUGGESTED THAT LOW VIRAL COPY INPUT SEVERELY AFFECTED REPRODUCIBILITY OF SNV CALLS AS WELL AS SENSITIVITY AND PRECISION OF CONSENSUS SNVs."

"The SARS-CoV-2 is a positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus, which has low stability once RNA enzymes are released after cellular destruction. THE QUALITY OF VIRUS RNA IS CRITICAL FOR THE DETECTION AND THE OVERALL GENOME SEQUENCING. It has been reported that only 47-59% of the positive cases are identified by RT-PCR, possibly due to loss or degradation of virus RNA during the sampling process22,23. Starting the RNA isolation immediately following NP swab sample collection may be ideal to minimize RNA degradation; however, immediate isolation is often impractical especially when involving large cohorts of sampling at different time points."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.10.375022v1.full?fbclid=IwAR1fyCkLwwGRF02mzvLH17Dho-UCosN5OxztFpDj_EhWH_KriHNw7-ds0Y4#ref-4

ELECTRON MICROGRAPH

MISINTERPRETING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE IMAGES:

It should be clear to anyone being intellectually honest that purification and isolation of a particle believed to be a "virus" is essential and can not be skipped. Without separating the particle from everything else, it is easy to see that Virologists look at numerous similar particles and mistake them for the preconceived one that they are looking for from the start. Without purification/isolation, there is no way for a Virologist to know what exactly they are looking for, especially in regards to a "novel virus" no one has supposedly ever seen before.

Below are numerous examples of misinterpretations of Electron Microscope images just for "SARS-COV-2." It is a long read, but you will see that there are multiple issues when trying to identify particles believed to be "SARS-COV-2." Attempting to identify images of this "virus" is an area fraught with subjective analysis of a preconceived idea of what a "SARS-COV-2" particle is supposed to look like:

Caution in Identifying Coronaviruses by Electron Microscopy

"WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ERRONEOUS IDENTIFICATION OF CORONAVIRUS DIRECTLY IN TISSUES BY AUTHORS USING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY. Several recent articles have been published that purport to have identified severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) directly in tissue.1–⇓⇓4 MOST DESCRIBE PARTICLES THAT RESEMBLE, BUT DO NOT HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF, CORONAVIRUSES."

"In the article by Farkash et al.,8 the electron microscopic images in their Figure 3, A–C DO NOT DEMONSTRATE CORONAVIRUSES. Rather, THE STRUCTURES DESCRIBED AS VIRUSES ARE CLATHRIN-COATED VESICLES (CCVs), normal subcellular organelles involved in intracellular transport."

"Additionally, Farkash et al.8 document their findings by referring to an article by Su et al.2 that purports to have identified coronavirus in kidney. Likewise, THAT ARTICLE SHOWS ONLY NORMAL CELL STRUCTURES THAT, to the non-electron microscopist virologist, MAY RESEMBLE CORONAVIRUS. Their interpretation has been refuted in Letters to the Editor of Kidney International."

"IDENTIFICATION OF VIRUSES IS NOT ALWAYS STRAIGHT FORWARD.

Consideration should be given to the mechanism of virus production, including the location inside of cells, as well as the appearance (size, shape, internal pattern of the nucleocapsid, and surface spikes).14–⇓16 CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT MISTAKING CELL ORGANELLES FOR VIRAL PARTICLES."

https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/31/9/2223

Multivesicular bodies mimicking SARS-CoV-2 in patients without COVID-19

"MOST OF THE PUBLISHED IMAGES DEPICTING THE SUSPECTED VIRUS ARE VERY SIMILAR, IF NOT IDENTICAL, TO MULTIVESICULAR BODIES (MVBs). MVBs have been well-known since the 1960s and their appearance and occurrence is detailed in the classic monograph of Feroze Ghadially; however, their exact significance and function is unclear. WE SUSPECT THAT THE EM IMAGES OF SARS-CoV-2 PUBLISHED TO DATE ARE IN FACT MVBs."

"TRANSMISSION EM OF TISSUE SECTIONS IS NOT A SPECIFIC OR SENSITIVE METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF VIRAL PARTICLES; THERE ARE NUMEROUS STRUCTURES FOUND BY EM THAT RESEMBLE VIRUSES (so-called viral-like particles), such as the well-known endothelial tubuloreticular inclusions (also called myxovirus-like particles). Therefore, caution is suggested when identifying a virus by EM in tissue sections."

https://www.kidney-international.org/article/S0085-2538(20)30529-9/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR1-u_utpFrHJj1fCx_krHH_ON-h6GFlFMooLtFSVsuEWvbWYArHX9PVQOw

Electron microscopy of SARS-CoV-2: a challenging task

"We read with interest the Correspondence by Zsuzsanna Varga and colleagues on the possible infection of endothelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 using electron microscopic (EM) images as evidence. However, we believe the EM images in the Correspondence DO NOT SHOW CORONAVIRUS PARTICLES BUT INSTEAD SHOW CROSS-SECTIONS OF THE ROUGH ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM (RER). These spherical structures are surrounded by dark dots, which might have been interpreted as spikes on coronavirus particles but are instead ribosomes."

"Just recently, there have been two additional reports in which structures that can normally be found in the cytoplasm of a cell HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED AS VIRAL PARTICLES. EM can be a powerful tool to show evidence of infection by a virus, BUT CARE MUST BE TAKEN WHEN INTERPRETING CYTOPLASMIC STRUCTURES TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY VIRUS PARTICLES."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31188-0/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR0vqPQjywvgr9UYR7WGENGiYLrnptttzRL_P-9RtphSiLfJ-d0thwkzJrY

Alternative interpretation to the findings reported in visualization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 invading the human placenta using electron microscopy

"The authors examined the placenta by transmission electron microscopy to identify SARS-CoV-2 particles. They identified circular inclusions in the cytoplasm of several syncytiotrophoblasts that they concluded were SARS-CoV-2 virions."

"THE STRUCTURES IDENTIFIED AS SARS-CoV-2 VIRIONS LOOK EXACTLY LIKE CLATHRIN-COATED PITS OR VESICLES. Clathrin-coated vesicles are spherical structures employed by trophoblasts and other cell types to internalize cargos from the extracellular space."

"I propose that the structures identified by Algarroba et al in their journal preproof paper ARE CLATHRIN-COATED VESICLES AND NOT SARS-CoV-2 PARTICLES. This conclusion is based on the following evidence: (1) the circular structures in the electron micrographs in the paper, identified as virions, have the size and shape of clathrin-coated vesicles found in nearly all eukaryotic cells"

https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(20)30632-3/fulltext

Why misinterpretation of electron micrographs in SARS-CoV-2-infected tissue goes viral

"Nevertheless, ULTRASTRUCTURAL DETAILS IN AUTOPSY TISSUES HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED AS CORONAVIRUS PARTICLES IN RECENT PAPERS. Bradley and colleagues described “coronavirus-like particles” in autopsy specimens of the “respiratory system, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract”, and in a case report Dolhnikoff and colleagues described “viral particles” in “different cell types of cardiac tissue” of a deceased child. HOWEVER, THE IMAGES IN THESE PUBLICATIONS SHOW PUTATIVE VIRUS PARTICLES THAT LACK SUFFICIENT ULTRASTRUCTURE FOR AN UNAMBIGUOUS IDENTIFICATION AS VIRUS. Some of these particles DEFINITELY REPRESENT OTHER CELLULAR STRUCTURES, such as rough endoplasmic reticulum (eg, Dolhnikoff and colleagues, figure 3B), multivesicular bodies (Bradley and colleagues, figure 5C) and coated vesicles (Bradley and colleagues, figure 5B, G). Moreover, it is remarkable that Dolhnikoff and colleagues referred to findings, described by Tavazzi and colleagues, of “viral particles” in interstitial cells, WHICH ARE CLEARLY NON-VIRAL STRUCTURES, SUCH AS COATED VESICLES. Furthermore, Bradley and colleagues quoted publications as a reference for their virus particle identification, which, in our opinion, both IDENTIFIED NON-CORONAVIRUS STRUCTURES AS CORONAVIRUS PARTICLES, as already discussed by Goldsmith and colleagues and by Miller and Brealey."

"As diagnostic EM requires both specialised staff and expensive equipment, and has been replaced by other methods (eg, immunohistochemistry) in several fields of application, its use has been in decline in the past decades, resulting in irreversible loss of expertise that now becomes dramatically overt during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. THIS DILEMMA OF DIAGNOSTIC EM SHOULD ALARM US ALL, AS MISLEADING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENCE OF SARS-CoV-2 IN TISSUE HAS ALREADY MADE ITS WAY INTO THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND SEEMS TO BE PERPETUATED."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2932079-1/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR2BQdJPs6xTeqpYby0GY8cEuSnKbn2T-82lGAls6spWWE7j8OmcumXsvGM

Characterizing Viral Infection by Electron Microscopy

"Direct infection of extrapulmonary tissues has been postulated, and using sensitive techniques, viral RNA has been detected in multiple organs in the body, including the kidney. However, direct infection of tissues outside of the lung has been more challenging to demonstrate. THIS HAS BEEN IN PART DUE TO MISINTERPRETATION OF ELECTRON MICROSCOPY STUDIES."

"With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, we are witnessing a renaissance in the use of electron microscopy (EM) to help identify virally infected cells and uncover the pathogenesis of this disease. Several articles have used EM to propose direct evidence of infection of the kidney and other tissues by SARS-CoV-2. These reports have fueled speculation that direct infection of tissues throughout the body contributes to the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19.

UNFORTUNATELY, MANY OF THESE STUDIES ARE FRAUGHT WITH CONFUSION OVER DIFFERENTIATING VIRUS FROM NORMAL STRUCTURES WITHIN CELLS, LEADING TO AN EXPLOSION OF MISINFORMATION. Indeed, published articles claiming to provide direct evidence of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in kidney cells and endothelial cells HAVE PROVOKED LETTERS TO THE EDITOR CHALLENGING THESE CLAIMS."

"Understanding the biology of viruses is essential to accurately identify viral particles by EM BECAUSE CERTAIN CELLULAR ORGANELLES THAT CAN MIMIC THE STRUCTURE OF VIRAL PARTICLES (Table 1).

The location inside the cell and the type of membrane-bound organelles with which viral particles are associated can be important clues to identifying the virus. ACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF ELECTRON MICROGRAPHS requires integration of morphology and biology."

"The putative virions detected in the kidney renal tubular epithelial cells, podocytes, and endothelial cells described in several recent publications appear as free particles in the cytoplasm, a location that would not be expected for coronavirus. In vitro studies and the rare examples of in vivo coronavirus infections reported before the current pandemic, as well as recent reports of in vitro studies and human infections for the current pandemic, all demonstrate coronavirus within membrane-bound organelles, or outside of cells. Similar problems lie with proposed virus detected in multiple cell types in the chorionic villi of the placenta, endothelial cells within the lung, endothelial cells within the skin, and cardiomyocytes and interstitial cells in the heart. THESE REPORTS DO NOT DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE IDENTIFIED STRUCTURES OR WHY SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION OF HUMAN TISSUES WOULD BREAK THE EXISTING PARADIGM FOR CORONAVIRUS INFECTION. THIS RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MICROGRAPHS."

"Cellular Structures Mistaken for Virus

CELLS HAVE MANY ORGANELLES COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, with varying degrees of electron-dense material inside and surrounding them."

"CELLULAR VESICLES CAN BE DIFFICULT TO CLASSIFY ON THE BASIS OF MORPHOLOGY ALONE but can be deduced from their relationship with other membranes in the cell. Vesicles seen budding from the plasma membrane that are about 60 to 100 nm in diameter, surrounded by an electron-dense coat, and appear spiculated, are likely clathrin-coated (Figure 1B).

Vesicles that measure approximately 60 to 100 nm in diameter, have similar spiculated electron-dense coats, are found in the vicinity of ER and Golgi, and bud from these organelles are likely coatamer-coated (Figure 1, C and D). OTHER COATED VESICLES IDENTIFIED IN THE CELL CYTOPLASM CAN BE DIFFICULT TO CLASSIFY ON THE BASIS OF ULTRASTRUCTURAL MORPHOLOGY ALONE (Figure 1D)."

"Multivesicular bodies are also involved in the endocytic and exocytic functions of cells. Early endosomes pinch off molecules destined for removal or degradation into intraluminal vesicles, forming multivesicular bodies. The multivesicular bodies may fuse with autophagosomes or lysosomes to degrade the contents, or with the plasma membrane to expulse exosomes. THE INTRALUMINAL VESICLES FOUND WITHIN LARGER VESICLES (Figure 1E) HAVE BEEN CONFUSED WITH SARS-CoV-2 PARTICLES. MICROVILLI CAPTURED IN PLASMA MEMBRANE INVAGINATIONS CAN ALSO MIMIC MULTIVESICULAR BODIES AND BE CONFUSED FOR VIRAL PARTICLES (Figure 1F)."

"Proposed Criteria for Identification of Viral Infection of Tissues by Electron Microscopy in COVID-19 and Future Pandemics

TO ENSURE THE RIGOR AND REPRODUCIBILITY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF VIRUSES IN TISSUES BY ELECTRON MICROSCOPY, we propose that the following four criteria be met.

STRUCTURE: morphologic features of the viral particles SHOULD CONFORM TO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIRUS, including size and uniformity, formation of higher-order structures (aggregates/arrays/inclusions), the absence or presence of a clearly discernible membrane, and the qualities of internal (eg, nucleocapsid) and external (eg, peplomers/spikes) electron densities. If prior knowledge is lacking or incomplete, the structure of the viral particles should be established with an appropriate model system, such as electron microscopy of in vitro infected cells. For coronavirus, Goldsmith and Miller note that CORONAVIRUS SPIKES ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO VISUALIZE IN THIN SECTIONS USING TRANSMISSION EM, and are usually less obvious than clathrin coats. In addition, the nucleocapsid within the membrane of the viral particle has characteristic dot-like electron densities that are typically absent from cellular vesicles (Figure 2). The reported diameter of the virus is approximately 80 nm. However, in our studies, the SARS-CoV-2 viral particles had an average diameter of 64 nm (range, 56 to 75 nm) (Figure 2). Tissue preservation is also critical, and poor preservation, as is common for autopsy material, COMPROMISES OBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF ELECTRON MICROGRAPHS AND THE ABILITY TO CONCLUSIVELY IDENTIFY VIRAL PARTICLES.

LOCATION: viral particles should be present in sites that CONFORM WITH THE KNOWN BIOLOGY OF VIRAL REPLICATION; strong supporting evidence is required when attempting to identify viral particles in tissues with suboptimal preservation, necrosis, and autolysis to differentiate these particles from normal cellular structures. Coronavirus particles are found inside the cisternae of the ER-Golgi and secretory compartment, as well as outside of cells (Figure 2).

INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE EM FINDINGS: additional validated tests, such as PCR, immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization, and immunoelectron microscopy, should be performed independently to confirm viral infection and further support the interpretation of the EM findings (Figure 3).

EXPERTISE: electron microscopy should be performed AND INTERPRETED by experienced individuals and aided by appropriate controls and bona fide images of the virus sought. Experience with electron microscopy for diagnosis of kidney diseases alone IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCURATELY DISCERN SUBCELLULAR ORGANELLES FROM NOVEL VIRUSES, and appropriate experience should be gained or sought."

https://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-9440(20)30503-4/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR39Jq5uD_6kLAl7Y9PHk04Bqtne7FKuISupQNjTG5ejNAQe8VO5fvLBz3o

As you can see, the image of "SARS-COV-2" truly is in the eye of the beholder...or at least the one interpreting the TEM images.

One of the "proofs" people try to offer in support of "SARS-COV-2" or any other "virus" is that there are pictures of them. They assume that since we can see images of these "viruses," they must exist. The images referred to are normally Transmission Electron Microscope images taken from cell cultures. However, there are numerous issues in relying on cell cultures for proof of anything as detailed here: (Also Below this topic)

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158078047703576&id=502548575

Before the invention of the Electron Microscope in 1931, "viruses" were just assumed to exist and cause disease. They could not be seen visually. After the invention of EM, normally invisible particles said to be "viruses" could now be seen. However, the status of these particles as a "virus" was still assumed as they were never properly purified/isolated from an unaltered sample from a sick patient nor proven pathogenic in a realistic way using animal models. What Virologists do is look for particles fitting the image they want of a "virus" in an unpurified cell culture and then imply pathogenicity as well as function to these particles.

This is a brief description of how the cell culture samples are prepared for imaging and the many particles that are certain to be in the sample which resemble "viruses:"

"Briefly, a 10 µl preparation is taken from the cell culture, placed on a formvar and carbon coated grid, this is followed by the addition of 10 µl of negative stain (e.g. phosphotungstic acid). The solutions are left on the grid for a few seconds to 1 minute followed by drying with filter paper. The grid is then ready to be viewed using a TEM. With this method the background is stained and particles, including intact virions are left unstained, therefore outer details of the virus are visualized against the electron-dense background. CARE MUST BE TAKEN WITH INTERPRETATION SINCE THE SAMPLE CONTAINS OTHER CELLULAR DEBRIS THAT CAN BE IN THE SIZE RANGE OF A VIRUS."

"When TEM techniques are applied to diagnostic samples it is often for the purpose of detecting a virus and thus THERE MAY BE A BIAS TO CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE TISSUE TO FIND A PARTICLE THAT RESEMBLES A VIRUS. Generally in cell culture the virus has been amplified to such high concentrations that detecting and identifying the virus should be relatively straightforward. IF IT IS NOT, THEN OTHER CAUSES FOR CPE IN THE CELL LINE, SUCH AS TOXICITY, SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED."

"Strict criteria must be utilized in order to be confident that a virus is responsible for the associated pathology and CAUTION MUST BE PRACTICED TO AVOID MISIDENTIFYING NORMAL CELL STRUCTURES THAT MAY RESEMBLE A VIRUS. When a viral etiology is suspected and searched for in tissue IT IS AMAZING HOW MANY CELL STRUCTURES CAN RESEMBLE A VIRUS!"

"HOST CELLULAR ORGANELLES CAN FALL INTO THE SAME SIZE RANGE AS VIRUSES AND CAN RESEMBLE VIRAL STRUCTURES, although clear differences discern cell organelles and virions. The potential for the structures in question to be related to cellular organelles in either normal or pathological states must be ruled out TO AVOID MISIDENTIFICATION OF CELLULAR STRUCTURES AS “VIRUS-LIKE”. Several cellular components in the cytoplasm THAT MAY BE CONFUSED FOR VIRUSES include primary lysosomes, secretory granules (Figure 6a,b), transport vesicles (Figure 6c), glycogen (Figure 7), and crystalline inclusions. In the nucleus structures such as nuclear pores and perichromatin granules (Figure 8), measuring 30-35 nm, are very common and must not be confused with viruses found in the nucleus, such as herpesvirus and adenoviruses. Nuclear pores are found within the nuclear membranes and when sectioned en face the pores are clearly visible.

IN ADDITION TO NORMAL CELL STRUCTURES, PATHOLOGICAL PROCESSES CAN LEAD TO UNUSUAL CYTOPLASMIC OR NUCLEAR INCLUSIONS THAT CAN RESEMBLE VIRAL STRUCTURES."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://units.fisheries.org/fhs/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/08/2.1.2-Electron-Microscopy-for-Virology.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi3poS69pnvAhVJXK0KHUC7CT44FBAWMAB6BAgEEAI&usg=AOvVaw1iLCKhWcDiQKWNMtbIxVxi

{{The fact that there are many micro and nanoparticles within the culture which resemble "viruses" shows why it is absolutely essential for the sample said to contain a "virus" to be PURIFIED so that a "virus" is ISOLATED from everything else which could resemble one. Exosomes, which are identical to "viruses," are some of the billions of "virus-like" particles that are within samples:}}

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158047459148576&id=502548575

Besides the fact that there is no realistic way for a Virologist to pick out a particle from an unpurified sample in a TEM image and claim it is the "virus" they were looking for, there are other disadvantages to TEM for "viral" identification as well:

"DISADVANTAGES OF ELECTRON MICROSCOPY

INABILITY TO ANALYZE LIVE SPECIMENS – As electrons are easily scattered by other molecules in the air, samples must be analyzed in a vacuum. This means that live specimens cannot be studied by this technique. THIS MEANS THAT BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS CANNOT BE PROPERLY OBSERVED, which limits the applications of electron microscopy in biological research.

BLACK AND WHITE IMAGES – Only black and white images can be produced by an electron microscope. IMAGES MUST BE FALSELY COLORIZED.

ARTEFACTS – These may be present in the image produced. ARTEFACTS ARE LEFT OVER FROM SAMPLE PREPARATION and require specialized knowledge of sample preparation techniques to avoid."

https://www.news-medical.net/amp/life-sciences/Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-Electron-Microscopy.aspx?fbclid=IwAR3UNscQUoa0K28GKy1fwCnYUEgh1qyE8nwdL8yim5CTDfl3ABELk2UKedw

The process to fix and stain a sample for viewing in a TEM image also has several disadvantages:

"To be visualised by an electron microscope, biological samples need to be: fixed (stabilised) so the electron beam doesn’t destroy them dried thoroughly so the vacuum doesn’t affect them.

"The first – and perhaps most important – step in the preparation process is fixation. In this step, living tissue is chemically treated to stabilise it. THIS KILLS THE TISSUE SAMPLE AT THE SAME TIME. It’s important to fix a sample as quickly as possible because, AS SOON AS TISSUE IS REMOVED FROM ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, IT STARTS TO CHANGE. For instance, oxygen levels start to drop as soon as tissue is removed from an organism. This causes mitochondria to start to change their appearance. Another common change in the fixation process is that lipids tend to form micelles."

"LOOKING OUT FOR ARTEFACTS OF FIXATION

Micelles and strange-shaped mitochondria are examples of artefacts – structures that are seen under the microscope but aren’t found in living cells. It’s very important to be aware that ARTEFACTS CAN BE INTRODUCED DURING FIXATION SO THAT YOU DON'T MISTAKEN THEM FOR REAL PARTS OF YOUR SAMPLE. Telling the difference between an artefact and a ‘real’ structure CAN BE DIFFICULT."

"For TEM, samples must be cut into very thin cross-sections. This is to allow electrons to pass right through the sample. AFTER BEING FIXED AND DEHYDRATED, SAMPLES ARE EMBEDDED IN HARD RESIN TO MAKE THEM EASIER TO CUT. Then, an instrument called an ultramicrotome cuts the samples into ultra-thin slices (100 nm or thinner). TEM SAMPLES ARE ALSO TREATED WITH HEAVY METALS to increase the level of contrast in the final image. The parts of the sample that interact strongly with the metals show up as darker areas."

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/500-preparing-samples-for-the-electron-microscope?fbclid=IwAR2IP8pqTXzSO6OdxjSZSa6LVmm9Hk6uSAwvVrGgW4VKDgPDuoFDi8YvilA

There are many chemicals and procedures done to the cell culture sample before the imaging can take place. It is admitted that these processes can alter the sample which introduces artefacts. These artefacts are structures not seen in LIVING CELLS yet the sample that is seen in an TEM image is NO LONGER LIVING and has been heavily altered not only by cell culture conditions but also by the fixing and staining process. For a Virologist to claim any of these particles are "viruses" let alone that they are found in living cells is disingenuous at best and flat out lying at worst.

Look at the TEM images below. Can you tell which are "viruses" and which are exosomes or other extracellular vesicles which resemble "viruses?"

Virologists can not either.

There are many subcellular structures that can be confused with "viruses" in TEM images. To believe that they can look at sections from unpurified cell culture supernatant made up of nearly identical particles to identify a "novel virus" never before seen nor isolated is completely absurd:

"Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) seems to be a logical tool to look for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, BUT SOME OF THE PUBLISHED RESULTS ARE HIGHLY CONTESTED (kidney,8, 22 endothelium,8, 9, 23-28 intestine,8 liver29-32 and placenta33-37)."

"Pathologists are good at detecting some viral infections – at least in identifying unusual inclusions on a haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)‐stained slide. HOWEVER, UNLESS THERE IS A KNOWLEDGE OF VIRUS MORPHOLOGY (WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE) AND MORPHOGENESIS (HOW AND WHERE IN THE CELL THEY ARE ASSEMBLED), IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY THEM. Depending on the virus, we use immunohistochemistry targeting viral proteins or in‐situ hybridisation to highlight their DNA or RNA. Molecular pathology techniques allow us to test for viruses in tissues when in situ techniques are not yielding results. All these techniques have been applied successfully in the context of SARS‐CoV‐2 (Figure 1;5, 38, 39). IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANY OF THESE TESTS REQUIRE AN A PRIORI NOTION OF WHAT IS PRESENT; otherwise, it is difficult to choose the right reagent (e.g. if a herpesvirus is suspected and an anti‐herpesvirus antibody is used, but the infection is caused by an adenovirus, then the test is negative and the diagnosis is no closer to being made)."

"MORPHOLOGICAL MIMICKED OF SARS‐CoV‐2

PHYSIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES INCLUDING COATED VESICLES, MULTIVESICULAR BODIES AND CROSS‐SECTIONS OF THE ROUGH ER ARE MORPHOLOGICAL LOOKALIKES OF GENUINE CORONAVIRUSES.105

Coated vesicles (CV) are single membrane‐bound vesicles of variable size (typically 50–150 nm) characterised by ‘spiny adornments on their limiting membrane’ (Ghadially106) (Figure 4E). They are involved in endocytosis and membrane trafficking (reviewed in Robinson107).

In CLATHRIN-COATED VESICLES, the best‐studied example, the CV bud off from so‐called coated pits on the cell surface during micropinocytosis. Clathrin and other quantitatively minor proteins provide a three‐dimensional structural lattice, which is readily seen in electron micrographs. MORPHOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL STRUCTURES WITH COATS PROVIDED BY THE MAIN PROTEINS, COPI or COPII, are involved in transport processes of the trans‐Golgi network.

Internalisation of SARS‐CoV‐2, after binding to its receptor ACE2, involves this mechanism.46, 47 WHILE CV MAY TRANSPORT VIRAL PROTEINS, as shown for vesicular stomatitis virus,108 AND MAY BE USED FOR REPLICATION OF POLIOVIRUS 109 and, further, HAVE A SIMILAR SIZE TO THAT OF CORONAVIRUS, they are not the assembled virus itself. However, ALTHOUGH THE PROJECTIONS APPEAR AS A PERFECT ‘CORONA’ IN CROSS‐SECTIONS, CV lack the nucleocapsid present inside coronavirus cross‐sections, and they are located within the cytoplasm and not within vacuoles."

"Multivesicular bodies (MVB) are other structures of the endosomal pathway visible by TEM (Figure 4F) (reviewed in Huotari and Helenius110)."

"MVB ARE THE PERFECT ‘DECOY’ FOR ELECTRON MICROSCOPISTS SEARCHING FOR VIRAL PARTICLES. Some of us have been misled by them in our COVID‐19 autopsy series5 BECAUSE THE ILV HAVE A SIMILAR SIZE TO SARS‐CoV‐2 AND ARE LOCATED WITHIN VESICLES."

"A CROSS‐SECTION THROUGH ROUGH ER CAN EASILY BE MISTAKEN FOR A ‘VIRUS‐LIKE PARTICLE’, but these are located within the cytoplasm and not in vesicles and lack the nucleocapsid structures inside."

"In kidneys from COVID‐19 autopsies, WE ENCOUNTERED A PECULIAR SUBCELLULAR STRUCTURE CLOSELY MIMICKING SARS‐CoV‐2 but probably related to the ER (Figure 4C,G–I).5, 13 Larger vesicles with a smooth outside membrane contained several round to oval small vesicles with prominent electron‐dense granules on the inside. These granules were bigger than SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleocapsid seen in our infected cell cultures and had the same size as the ribosomes visible in areas containing rough ER (ribosomes: 20–21 nm (range = 17–23 nm) versus nucleocapsid: 12 nm (range = 9–16 nm). These vesicles with ‘outside‐in’ ribosomes are possibly derived from the rough ER by membrane invaginations, as suggested in some of the TEM pictures (Figure 4I). Because the particles inside are larger than nucleocapsid cross‐sections, WE BELIEVE THAT THEY PROBABLY DO NOT REPRESENT ASSEMBLED VIRIONS."

"The published in‐vivo data are less convincing. COATED VESICLES, MULTIVESICULAR BODIES AND SWOLLEN ROUGH ENDOPLASMIC RETICULUM ARE IMPORTANT MIMICS OF ASSEMBLED VIRIONS, all of which lack the electron‐dense dots of the nucleocapsid inside the particles."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/his.14264

It is apparent that what is identified in TEM images is based on guesswork and assumptions made by the subjective interpretation of the person viewing the images.

Oh look, it's SARS-COV-1...no wait, it's MERS...no, not that...maybe SARS-COV-2? I guess it could be exosomes. Possibly clathrin coated or secretory vesicles...?

Without purification/isolation, who knows...?

________________________________________________________________________

____________________________

THE CASE AGAINST CELL CULTURES: SUMMARY

"MANY CLINICALLY RELEVANT VIRUSES ARE SIMPLY DIFFICULT TO GROW OR CANNOT BE GROWN AT ALL IN CULTURED CELLS, while other viruses require specialized culture systems that are either not available or too complicated for routine use in diagnostic laboratories. Traditional tube cultures, although viewed as being comprehensive in growing a wide range of viruses and capable of detecting unsuspected new viruses or more common viruses in new places, FAIL TO ISOLATE VIRUSES IN MANY INSTANCES and can take days to weeks to provide a final result. While centrifugation-assisted cultures using individual, mixed, or genetically engineered cell lines are designed to be faster and more user-friendly than tube cultures, THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS AS SENSITIVE AND ARE NORMALLY LIMITED BY THE QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF REAGENTS AND THE NUMBER AND TYPES OF CELL LINES THAT CAN BE USED TO GROW A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT VIRUSES."

"VIRAL CULTURE SYSTEMS REALLY HAVE NOT BEEN STANDARDIZED OR SCRUTINIZED TO THE SAME EXTENT AS MOLECULAR TESTING AND CAN VARY CONSIDERABLY, depending upon the selection of appropriate cell lines; the adequate collection, transport, and handling of specimens to ensure virus viability; and the maintenance of viable and healthy inoculated cells."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3536207/

The above two paragraphs offer a decent summary on the state of cell culturing and the inherent difficulties as well as the inability to grow or produce a "virus." These systems have not been standardized nor scrutinized as well as they should be and the multitude of variables that need to be met in order to produce the intended results are vast. I took a deep dive into cell cultures over the past week and I am sharing the various posts here for easy reference as well as to present the case against the use of cell cultures as proof of any "virus."

For a brief overview on the cell culture process as well as a few of the toxic ingredients used, start here:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158065023878576&id=502548575

When Virologists claim to isolate a "virus," they are referring to the end result of a cell culture experiment. They never actually separate a particle they assume to be a "virus" directly from the sample obtained from a sick human first, they simply assume there is a "virus" already within the patient sample and go from there. There are a few problems with this.

1. There are billions of different micro and nanoparticles within the patient sample, including cellular debris, extracellular vesicles, and exosomes which are indistinguishable from "viruses."

2. The sample from a sick patient is immediately placed in what is called Viral Transport Media which contain chemicals that are toxic to cells.

_____________________________________

VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIA:

Viral Transport Media is used to "preserve" a "virus" after the sample has been taken from the sick person. It is intended to keep the "virus" in a stable condition while it is transported to laboratories in order to be tested, cultured, sequenced, etc. Looking at two of the original "SARS-COV-2" papers for what was used as a VTM sheds quite a bit of light on this hoax:

From the Zhou paper:

"For swabs, 1.5 ml DMEM CONTAINING 2% FBS was added to each tube."

"THE VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIUM was composed of Hank’s balanced salt solution (pH 7.4) containing BSA (1%), AMPHOTERICIN (15 μg ml−1), PENICILLIN G (100 units ml−1) AND STREPTOMYCIN (50 μg ml−1)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

"Oropharyngeal samples were diluted with VIRAL TRANSFER MEDIUM CONTAINING nasopharyngeal swabs and ANTIBIOTICS (NYSTADIN, PENICILLIN-STREPTOMYCIN 1:1 dilution)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

Knowing what we already know about the disastrous effects of DMEM, Fetal Bovine Serum, and Antibiotics on cell cultures should be enough to question the results of these studies. Keep in mind that adding VTM is done to the sample BEFORE the Cell Culture. It is already contaminated by toxic chemicals and then it is added to African Green Monkey Kidney cells which is further bombarded by cell altering chemicals/contaminants.

It is clear that VTM is a toxic mixture currently being used in the transport of patient samples. Are there other solutions that are less toxic to the samples and cells that can be used as VTM?

PHOSPHATE BUFFERED SALINE:

Other media has been used to transport specimens during this "pandemic" such as Phosphate Buffered Saline, which is already used for other aspects of Cell Culture such as washing and dilution:

"PBS (phosphate buffered saline) is a balanced salt solution used for a variety of cell culture applications, such as washing cells before dissociation, transporting cells or tissue, diluting cells for counting, and preparing reagents."

https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/10010023?fbclid=IwAR3bzQRmT5tdDjLvmK8unP_6WhCCwa-r4_WKvO_-gErjjlbI6QpJjEpvhjg#/10010023

PBS is considered a relatively safe and non-toxic salt solution for most cells. However, even this relatively "non-toxic" solution can alter the cells during the culturing process so it's use as a transport media should be questioned as well:

"THE EFFECT OF TIME AND DILUENTS ON CELL CULTURE IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD."

"Furthermore, LENGTH OF TIME samples were incubated in phosphate buffered saline also CONTRIBUTED TO THE OBSERVED DROP IN CELL VIABILITY."

"THIS REPORT PRESENTS THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF, and alternatives for, CELL CULTURE SAMPLES DILUTED IN PHOSPHATE BUFFERED SALINE (PBS). LOWER VIABILITY AND GREATER VARIABILITY WAS OBSERVED WITH PBS DILUTED SAMPLES. Furthermore, the viability of PBS diluted samples CONTINUOUSLY DECREASED OVER TIME AND AT A FASTER RATE THAN THE OTHER CONDITIONS. This phenomenon was observed with multiple cell lines and different culture systems."

"Therefore, care needs to be taken when preparing viability samples with diluents TO ENSURE THE RESULTS ARE ACCURATE AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CULTURE."

"Cell culture sample dilution is sometimes necessary to preserve the working volume and/or to extend assay measurement range. Therefore, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE DILUENTS THAT DO NOT INADVERTENTLY DECREASE VIABILITY."

"A systematic investigation has revealed that CELL CULTURE SAMPLES DILUTED IN PBS COULD INADVERTENTLY LOWER THE VIABILITY WHEN MEASURED USING AUTOMATED CELL COUNTERS. The effect of PBS on viability can be consistently reproduced, and is independent of process scale, cell line, operator and automated cell counter used. In addition, THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF PBS ON THE VIABILITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE SAMPLE INCUBATION TIME, AND INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE TCC."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5338812/

From a Cell Counting Manual:

"However resuspension in PBS BUFFER RESULTS IN A DRASTIC LOSS OF VIABILITY AND SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN AVERAGE CELL DIAMETER. There is also some minor reduction in cell concentration which may be expected from losses during resuspension. Spinning and resuspending a second time in PBS HAS A FURTHER NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CELL VIABILITY AND CELL SIZE."

"It is recommended that prior to running a cell culture on a complete plate that some initial evaluation is performed to determine the robustness of the cells involved AND THEIR ABILITY TO TOLERATE THE SAMPLE PREPARATION METHODS AND PROLONGED EXPOSURE OUTSIDE THE INCUBATOR ENVIRONMENT. Even engineered

cells such as CHO cells or immortal HELA cells, which are generally selected to be quite durable, CAN BE EFFECT BY STRESS OR PARTICULAR SAMPLE PREPARATION CONDITIONS."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.beckman.com/gated-media%3FmediaId%3D%257B06D69A51-A996-456C-9E06-6E8A23E2D79C%257D&ved=2ahUKEwiOwIqvqvvuAhXUHc0KHe25A5sQFjADegQIBBAG&usg=AOvVaw0fqNRJAJ-l6vIFhB3g1eXk

It appears even the relatively "harmless" PBS has an adverse effect on cell cultures including lower viability, greater variability, and a decrease in cell size. It is admitted that the length of time and effect of PBS on cell cultures is not well known, which seems to be a common theme regarding the interactions of all of the various chemicals, antibiotics, nutrients, serums, etc. on the samples and cell cultures.

Trust the conclusions of these "studies" at your own risk.

______________________________

These chemicals are added as a way to "safely" transfer the patient sample to the lab for testing, culturing, and other molecular biological techniques. They often are composed of some sort of salt solution, fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, and can be contaminated by disinfectants such as ethanol. These are all substances which are toxic to cells and can change the sample before the culturing process even begins.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158076065703576&id=502548575

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158076366038576&id=502548575

After this, they may do some centrifugation (spin the sample really fast) to separate out larger particles (leaving behind many EV's, exosomes, "viruses," etc. that are too small to be filtered out) and then will take what is called the supernatant, which is what is collected after letting the sample settle, and add it to a cell to be cultured.

There are many different types of cells that can be chosen from to culture a "virus" in and they typically come from either human cancer cells or from animals such as monkeys and rabbits:

"Examples of well-known cell types that are standard for most virology laboratories are primary rhesus monkey kidney (RhMK) cells, primary rabbit kidney cells, human lung fibroblasts (MRC-5), human foreskin fibroblasts, human epidermoid carcinoma cells (HEp-2), human lung carcinoma cells (A549), and others."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797634/

The cells that are used are critical to producing a "virus" which makes choosing the right one extremely important. There are problems with this step which can lead to contamination, errors, and faulty research.

CELL LINE MISIDENTIFICATION:

There is a crisis in cell cultures which threatens to throw out the results of many studies. Cell lines have been continuously mislabeled or replaced by cells from different individuals, tissues, or species. This problem has been known since the 1960's and instead of being corrected over the years, it has only grown worse. Over half of all studies using misidentified cell lines have come since the year 2000, well after the problem was discovered. The results of experiments from studies using misidentified cell lines are cited and built upon by other researchers confounding the problem and throwing uncertainty over the results over a vast amount of scientific literature.

MAGIC SHOWS

Recent Posts

Comments

DON'T MISS THE FUN.

FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE

SHOP MY LOOK

POST ARCHIVE

BLOG

ABOUT

CONTACT