PRYSIM
Updated: Sep 15, 2021
An alleged outbreak of disease in Wuhan, China in late December 2019 was quickly reported as having developed into an ‘epidemic’ and on the 11th March 2020 the WHO declared it to be a ‘pandemic’.
( - I might have a total of 4 words of my own in here - thank you to the dedicated investigators - )
In quick succession, countries around the world were being ‘locked down’ in an apparent effort to contain the disease; the phrase ‘flatten the curve’ was used to suggest that the numbers of cases were dramatically increasing to form a steeply inclining curve on graphs produced by various authorities. These ‘lock downs’ were claimed to be able to stop the spread of the allegedly dangerous SARS-CoV2 coronavirus.
In the months that followed, people were urged to be tested, to wear masks and to ‘socially distance’ by keeping 6 feet or 2 metres apart from each other. Reports stated that efforts were being made to produce a vaccine and that we could not return to ‘normal’ until we had all been vaccinated and therefore ‘protected’ from this allegedly dangerous pathogenic coronavirus. Amazingly, various companies within the pharmaceutical industry were able to produce a number of vaccines in record time and, as soon as they were made available to the public, people began to get their jabs.
This is obviously an extremely brief overview of the events that have occurred in these unprecedented times in which we are currently living. We are certainly all under threat, but the real threat we face is not the result of any ‘infection’ by a new and deadly ‘virus’.
There are clearly many aspects to this whole COVID story, some of which are distractions from the core issues and only serve to sow seeds of doubt and confusion in people’s minds. These distractions will not be discussed here.
The aim of this article, which will focus on the core issues, could be accomplished by the simple statement that,
“No virus has ever been proven to cause any disease; therefore, there is no such disease as COVID-19 caused by a virus called SARS-CoV2”.
However, we realise that more clarification is required for most people in order to help them understand the extent of the lies we have been told, the draconian nature of the measures we are being subjected to and the reasons for their imposition.
The Virus
Viruses are defined as particles comprised of genetic material in a protein coating. They are not living organisms. But these non-living particles have never been isolated and their genetic constitution has never been characterized. This in turn means that scientists have no knowledge of the actual identity of any specific so-called ‘viral particle’. Furthermore, and most importantly, no ‘viral particle’ has been proven to be the cause of any disease – ever!
All experiments that are conducted in the belief that they will produce ‘isolation of a virus’ are based on the experiments conducted by John Enders and Thomas Peebles in the 1950s and reported in their seminal paper entitled Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles that was published in 1954. The experiments they performed are claimed to have proved that a particular ‘virus’ was the cause of measles; but a careful reading of the actual paper demonstrates that this is not the case.
In his article in the 4/2020 edition of his Wissenschafftplus magazine, Dr Stefan Lanka PD states that,
“Enders, his colleagues and all virologists overlooked…that the death of the cells in the laboratory is not caused by a virus, but because the cells are unintentionally and unnoticed but systematically killed in the laboratory.”
This means that all experiments since 1954 that claim to have proved a viral cause of a disease merely demonstrate cytopathic effects that are the result of the experimental procedures that involve the use of toxic substances; they are not the result of any ‘virus’.
In fact, the particles that have been labelled ‘viruses’ have never been proven to be anything other than cell/tissue debris; as Stefan Lanka clearly states in his article,
“Virologists report typical artifacts of dying tissue / cells and typical structures…as viruses or viral components.”
In other words, all particles that have been labelled ‘viruses’ are simply dead or dying cell/tissue debris.
If everyone were to become aware of this fundamental fact, then this false ‘pandemic’ would immediately come to an end, because the entire population would understand that there is no reason for them to fear any ‘viral infection’, to wear masks or to adhere to social distancing from their families and friends.
References:
WHO declares a pandemic 11th March 2020
ENDERS JF, PEEBLES TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277-86. doi: 10.3181/00379727-86-21073. PMID: 13177653.
Wissenschafftplus
__________________________
DR. R.Y.
Kary Mullis, PhD,
Nobel laureate in chemistry for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for testing genetic matter, stated, “I can’t find a single virologist who will give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS …. If you ask a virologist for that information, you don’t get an answer, you get fury” [1]. Dr. Mullis has continued his outspoken criticisms of the AIDS establishment, “Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? We know everything in the world about HIV now. There are 10,000 people in the World now who specialize in HIV.”
This same fraudulent activity in virology has continued
with the Ebola virus, the Hantavirus, the Hepatitis virus, the West Nile virus, the Zika virus, just to name a few, and now with the Corona virus – COVID -19
The Virus and Koch’s Postulates
Koch’s postulates are a set of conditions long accepted as the requirements for establishing a fixed microorganism as the cause of a specific disease. The case for HIV as the AIDS virus or COVID – 19 causes acute lung disease syndrome (ARDS) as with the identification of any so-called causative infectious agent, should depend upon meeting these parameters, of which there are four. (Keep in mind that researchers disagree about what constitutes proof that any germ causes a disease.)
1. The germ must be found in all cases of the disease.
Tissues said to be affected by HIV or COVID -19 include primarily the white blood cells of the immune system, particularly the T-cells, the brain neurons in dementia, skin cells in lesions of Kaposi’s sarcoma, in the lungs as well as, theoretically, any cell in the body expressing the CD4 surface receptor said to be the key to HIV or COVID – 19 cell entry. But no trace of the virus can be found in either the Kaposi’s sarcoma or the neurons of the central nervous system or the lungs in Acute Respiratory Disease Syndrome or ARDS. HIV and COVID -19 have moved from involving only immune cells to other types of cells in order to explain certain AIDS-defining symptoms or COVID -19 defining symptoms which are not immune deficiencies anyway, including the cancers, dementia and wasting diseases, dry cough, fevers and hypoxia which have not been, or cannot be, explained in terms of a germ-theory virus model that involves destruction of the immune system.
And, if HIV or the COVID-19 viruses were actively infecting T-cells or other members of the body’s immune system, extracellular virions should easily be found circulating in the blood. But in most individuals suffering from AIDSyndrome or COVID – 19, no particles can be found anywhere in the body.
Another aspect of HIV is that now several HIV and COVID “reservoirs” have been suggested. One encyclopedia, which will go unnamed, says: “Researchers have also been able to show direct infection of bone-marrow cells-the precursors of circulating blood cells-and the proliferation of the virus within these cells. Thus bone marrow may represent an important reservoir of HIV or in COVID -19 the interstitial fluids of the Interstitium in an infected person and provide a potential mechanism for dissemination of the virus through the body.” This is misinformation, pure speculation, a conclusion based on laboratory pyrotechnics, or scientific fraud. It is also said that macrophages can support HIV and COVID-19 replication while harboring the virus from immune surveillance. Circulating macrophages are said to play an important role in the distribution of HIV and COVID-19 throughout the body, including the lung and brain. The question is, wouldn’t there be significant amounts of virus in a reservoir? The fact remains: it is nearly impossible to recover HIV or COVID – 19 from its “victims.” (See below under “Autoimmune Theory.”) One paper published in March 1993 reported two individuals with about 100,000 particles per milliliter of blood, among dozens of patients with little or no detectable extracellular particles [18].
The abundance of uninfected T-cells (about one in 500) in all patients is the definitive argument against the false claims for high cell-wall particle “loads,” or “burdens”. The absence of active, infectious virus automatically disqualifies HIV as a player in the AID Syndrome or COVID – 19 in acute lung disease syndrome (ARDS).
2. The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
Even for the most experienced virus hunters, a virus that is so extremely scarce is difficult to find. Only with rare luck and extreme persistence has HIV or COVID – 19 been extracted from an antibody-positive person. This amounts to finding the proverbial needle of HIV or COVID – 19 in a haystack of human DNA. This difficulty speaks to HIV’s or COVID – 19’s lack of potential in disease.
3. The purified germ must cause the disease again in another host.
There is no animal or human model for HIV and AIDS or COVID – 19 and ARDS, and where there is no animal or human model, you cannot establish Koch’s postulates. (It is more than disconcerting to think of the number of primates that have been injected to this day in an attempt to produce AIDS.)
HIV jumps in and says that HIV or any virus including COVD – 19 should receive special dispensation from Koch’s postulates.
A major stumbling block is the latency which is claimed, but whose modus is not explained by authorities. In 1989 the official latent period between HIV infection and the onset of AIDS was one year. This period of “incubation” has since been stretched to 10 to 12 years. For each year that passes without the predicted explosion in AIDS cases, approximately one year is added to this period. Even this is insufficient; with only 5 percent of do-called infected Americans developing AIDS each year, the average latent period would have to be revised to more than 20 years for 100 percent to become sick.
HIV should cause AIDS and COVID – 19 should cause ARDS within two weeks of infection at most, but it does not, and with the complete lack of a demonstrated process by which HIV or COVID – 19 diminishes immune function, belief in a decade or more of unexplained latency requires a level of “faith” beyond my capacity. Another major stumbling block is that even once the latent period of 14 days is apparently over, there is still precious little development of the HIV or COVID – 19 virus.
4. The germ must then be isolable from the newly infected host.
ALSO NEVER DONE
___
What do Viologist know about SARS COV-2?
(IN THEORY)
A virus is a particle wrapped in a protein coating containing genetic material, either RNA or DNA. A virus is considered to be a physical thing.
How do virologists find a new virus, in this case, SARS-CoV-2?
Lay people and most medical providers assume virologist take fluid samples from the nose or lungs of many sick people with the same symptoms and examine them under a powerful microscope. They assume that the virologists actually see a virus that they’ve never seen before in these samples.
How do they know that virus causes the disease in question, in this case, Covid-19?
Most people — again, including medical providers — would assume that virologists prove causation by exposing nothing but the pure virus to healthy animals in the normal way that viruses supposedly spread.
In fact, here’s what they do, and here’s what they did again with SARS-CoV-2. Virologists took bronchoscopy-guided lung samples (BAL fluid) from people with pneumonia from an unknown cause. They “washed” and filtered this fluid to remove large cellular debris, fungus and bacteria. Here’s where people’s assumptions of what happens and what actually happens diverge: They never examined this fluid under an electron microscope (the only type that can visualize something as small as a virus). In fact, virologists always skip examining this fluid under a microscope.
They then took this unpurified soluble fluid from the person with pneumonia of unknown origin and inoculated it onto tissue taken from an animal or human source. But first they added a variety of other fluids, including amniotic fluid, horse serum, bovine fetal serum, all of which are themselves rich sources of proteins and genetic material. They do this because the “virus” they’re looking for won’t grow otherwise. In addition, the nutrients supporting the growth of the tissue in the culture were withdrawn. In other words, the tissue was starved. Antibiotics, such as gentamicin and amphotericin, were added to the culture, both of which are known to be toxic to kidney tissue.
They then measured the ability of this unpurified mixture to lyse (or kill) the animal or human tissue in the culture. To date, the only tissue that was killed (called a cytopathic effect) came from Vero cells, which are taken from monkey kidneys. When the cultures contained only human or other animal-sourced tissues, little to no cytopathic effects were seen.1
The Vero cell culture did, indeed, break down into millions of different sized and shaped particles. The virologists took an electron-microscope picture of it, saw particles they said were budding out from the Vero cells, and they called those particles isolated SARS-Cov-2.
How do they know those particles in the culture are the culprits?
Here’s the problem: In reality, no accepted scientific protocol can distinguish a particle that emerges as a result of the breakdown of Vero cells or the other sources of genetic material added to the culture from a “virus” coming from the outside.2
It gets worse. As of today, no particle with the characteristics or appearance of SAR-CoV-2 (as seen in electron micrographs) has been found in the results of this “culture” procedure, until a protein-digesting enzyme called trypsin is added to the mix.3 This enzyme digests the outer protein coating of these particles, resulting in the characteristic “spike” protein appearance of the alleged SARS-CoV-2.
The next step for virologists is to do a genetic analysis of the results of this “viral culture.” Virologists have NOT and can NOT find any complete sequence in that culture that would represent the entire genome of any known virus. Rather, the genome sequencing is performed inside a computer, which is called in silico genome.
In this culture, they find billions of various sized pieces of genetic material. They chop these pieces into smaller bits, and some are discarded if they are alleged to originate from human or other microbial origin. These small sequences are “aligned” inside the computer, meaning, they are reconstructed into a long genome that would be the size of a coronavirus genome, which has been previously published.4
In other words, a complete genome is sequenced based on the template of other such in silico genomes, thereby guaranteeing that the computer will “find” SARS-CoV-2 in this new sample. Inevitably, there is some divergence in the new genome sequence as compared to the template. This is called a variant. At no time has the virologist found the complete sequence of either of SARS-CoV-2 or the variant in the BAL fluid. It exists only in the computer.
The only reasonable conclusion that anyone examining this process would come to is that no evidence exists that a real particle in the real world that causes what they’re calling Covid-19 has been found.
Sources:
2 Gianessi, et al Viruses 2020 May; 12(5): 571. The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV, and SARS Viruses
3 Caly et al, Med J Aust 2020, June; 212 (10) p. 459-462 PMID 3223727. Isolation and Rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with Covid-19 in Australia.
_______________
“The Wuhan virus has never been isolated. and that is the problem.” China’s Chief epidemiologist, Dr. Wu Zunyou, NBC report on 2021 January 23
What was it like at the very beginning of the Corona pandemic? What did you do?
"The test, the design, the development, comes from the Charité. We only immediately converted this into a kit format. And IF YOU DONT HAVE THIS VIRUS, which was only in Wuhan at first, we can produce a synthetic gene to simulate the virus genome. We did that very quickly." Ofret Landt - Owner of PCR test company
"I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV2" Michael Laue of the Robert Koch Institue - Sept 4, 2020
In July 2020, the FDA posted a CDC document entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. For Emergency Use Only. Instructions for Use.”1 Buried in the text, on page thirty-nine, is the following statement: “[N]o quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available.”
The DNA template used does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person." ... "The DNA template (SARS-Cov2, Gen Bank: MN9089473) was generated via a combination of gene synthesis and recombination of gene synthesis and recombinant DNA technology." - Pfizer
In other words, our government is telling us in July 2020—after plunging millions of people into poverty with a worldwide lockdown—that no purified isolated samples of this “novel coronavirus” exist, which means that the virus has never been isolated and purified. What they are finding in the RT-PCR swab tests are fragments of genetic material, one of which is found in human DNA.2 This means that the results of all RT-PCR tests are invalid—the only thing they can tell us is that we are human beings.
A January, 2020 paper on testing tells us the same thing: “The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable” [emphasis added].3 Nevertheless, even without knowing what this virus is like, the researchers’ aim was “to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT having virus material available.” A challenge indeed!
- Dr. Cowan
__________
There is NO PROOF of a purified/isolated "Coronavirus" that fulfills Koch's Postulates:
MISSING "VIRUS" ISOLATES:
This is from the FDA emergency use authorization of the CDC's PCR test used in the USA:
"SINCE NO QUANTIFIED VIRUS ISOLATES OF THE 2019-nCoV ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) TO MIMIC CLINICAL SPECIMEN."
From the Drosten PCR Test used around the world:
"The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories AS VIRUS ISOLATES ARE UNAVAILABLE"
"We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT HAVING VIRUS MATERIAL AVAILABLE."
"Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, ITS DESIGN RELYING ON CLOSE GENETIC RELATEDNESS of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, MAKING USE OF SYNTHETIC NUCLEIC ACIDS TECHNOLOGY."
"In the present case of 2019-nCoV, VIRUS ISOLATES OR SAMPLES FROM INFECTED PATIENTS HAVE SO FAR NOT BECOME AVAILABLE to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, DESIGNED IN ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE VIRUS ISOLATES OR ORIGINAL PATIENT SPECIMENS. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology."
From the CDC PCR Test:
"DETECTION OF VIRAL RNA MAY NOT INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF INFECTIOUS VIRUS OR THAT 2019-nCoV IS THE CAUSATIVE AGENT for clinical symptoms.
• The PERFORMANCE OF THIS TEST HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• THIS TEST CANNOT RULE OUT DISEASES CAUSED BY OTHER BACTERIAL OR VIRAL PATHOGENS."
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Here are plenty of examples of admittance that no "virus" isolates are available and they must concoct something to mimic it, that the test can not rule out other causes of disease, and that a positive test does not mean what is detected is causing disease.
MISSING PURIFICATION:
'We asked several study authors “DO YOUR ELECTRONIC MICROGRAPHS SHOW THE PURIFIED VIRUS?”, they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. IT IS NOT PURIFIED VIRUS.”
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “WE COULD NOT ESTIMATE THE DEGREE OF PURIFICATION BECAUSE WE DO NOT PURIFY AND CONCENTRATE THE VIRUS CULTURED IN CELLS.”
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “WE DID NOT OBTAIN AN ELECTRON MICROGRAPH SHOWING THE DEGREE OF PURIFICATION.”
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020 Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, NOT PURIFIED ONES.”
Why PURIFICATION matters:
"Purification clearly means SEPARATING THE VIRUS FROM ALL OTHER ORGANIC MATERIALS. Logically, this requires the following steps:
Culturing materials are believed to contain a virus in other cells (e.g. the Vero cells mentioned above) as viruses are not believed to replicate outside target cells.
Purifying virus particles by removing the liquid on top of the culture (supernatant) believed to contain the free viral particles, by filtering (to eliminate particles larger than a virus), by centrifugation (to separate particles by density).
Putting a portion of the material under an electron microscope to verify that almost all that can be seen is particles of the same size and shape.
Breaking down the proteins and genetic material (RNA or DNA, depending on the virus) in the rest of the sample and analyzing them (e.g. sequencing the RNA or DNA).
Note that only now can tests be developed because you have the pure proteins, RNA or DNA required to ensure that the test really is for viral materials. Furthermore, PURIFICATION IS THE ONLY WAY TO VALIDATE TESTS ONCE THEY ARE DEVELOPED. People who test positive (whether it is an RNA, DNA and, depending on the virus, antibody tests) should have the virus purifiable, and those who test negative should not."
LACK OF FULFILLMENT OF KOCH'S POSTULATES:
From the original study:
"ALTHOUGH OUR STUDY DOES NOT FULFILL KOCH'S POSTULATES, our analyses PROVIDE EVIDENCE IMPLICATING 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THE ETIOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include identification of a 2019-nCoV antigen in the lung tissue of patients by immunohistochemical analysis, detection of IgM and IgG antiviral antibodies in the serum samples from a patient at two time points to demonstrate seroconversion, and ANIMAL (monkey) EXPERIMENTS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PATHOGENICITY."
From the study the genome was taken from:
"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."
From the SEPARATE STUDY they linked:
"However, there are still many urgent questions that remain to be answered. THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN 2019-nCoV AND THE DISEASE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS TO FULFILL THE KOCH’S POSTULATES TO ESTABLISH A CAUSATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MICROORGANISM AND A DISEASE."
Why Koch's Postulates matter:
Explanation by David Crowe
"Koch’s postulates are a STATEMENT OF FOUR LOGICAL RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PATHOGEN EXISTS AND IS THE CAUSE OF A DISEASE (e.g. [Cann 1997]). THEY MUST BE SATISFIED before it can be accepted that a pathogen causes a disease. They state
that:
1. The pathogen must be present in every case of the disease.
2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in vitro (culture).
3. The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the pathogen is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
4. The same agent must be isolated once again from the experimentally infected host
Koch’s postulates are merely a STATEMENT OF THE MINIMAL EVIDENCE NECESSARY to
have confidence in the existence of a pathogen and its causal link to a disease. It
is important to note that THESE POSTULATES ARE NOT BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL
EVIDENCE, BUT ON SIMPLE LOGIC."
There is no valid evidence of a purified/isolated "virus" that fulfills Koch's Postulates.
We have been lied to over and over again.
Related evidence of the MISSING "VIRUS:"
_____
ONLY POISONED MONKEY KIDNEY CELLS ‘GREW’ THE ‘VIRUS’
First, in the section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the CORONAVIRUS REFRENCE sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).”
To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.
The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by “consensus,” sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn,” so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.
The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:
“Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. NO CPE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE CELL LINES EXCEPT IN VERO CELLS, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.”
What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community?
When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible “hosts” or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.
The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.
The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.
My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.
If people really understood how this “science” was done, I would hope they would storm the gates and demand honesty, transparency and truth.
______
THAT ABOVE JUST IN MORE DETAIL I DIDNT KNOW WHICH ONE TO PASTE - SORRY FOR THE REPETITION
CDC 2020 "SARS-COV-2" PAPER:
On March 7, 2020, the CDC released their study on the "isolation" and characterization of "SARS-COV-2" from the first US patient identified by PCR testing on January 22nd, 2020. As with every single paper before it, the CDC relies on unpurified cell cultures to claim "isolation" of a new "Coronavirus." They utilize the same unproven molecular tricks to create a genetic blueprint in a computer database for something they have never seen in reality. There are some interesting wrinkles I will point out with this particular study that put it squarely into unreliable territory along with all the others as well. Highlights below:
ISOLATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF SARS-CoV-2 FROM THE FIRST US COVID-19 PATIENT
"RESULTS and DISCUSSION
A patient was identified with confirmed COVID-19 in Washington State on January 22, 2020 with cycle threshold (Cts) of 18–20 (nasopharyngeal(NP)) and 21–22 (oropharyngeal (OP)) (1). THE POSITIVE CLINICAL SPECIMENS WERE ALIQUOTED AND REFROZEN INOCULATION INTO CELL CULTURE on January 22, 2020. We first observed cytopathic effect (CPE) 2 days post inoculation and harvested viral lysate on day 3 post inoculation (Figure 1B and and1C).1C). Fifty μl of P1 VIRAL LYSATES WERE USED FOR NUCLEIC ACID EXTRACTION TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF SARS-CoV-2 USING THE CDC MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC ASSAY (1). The Cts of three different nucleic acid extractions ranged from 16.0–17.1 for N1, 15.9–17.1 for N2 and 16.2–17.3 for N3, confirming isolation of SARS-CoV-2. A Ct of less than 40 is considered positive. The extracts were also tested for the presence of 33 additional different respiratory pathogens with the fast track 33 assay. No other pathogens were detected. Identity was additionally supported by thin section electron microscopy (Figure 1D). WE OBSERVED A MORPHOLOGY AND MORPHOGENESIS CHARACTERISTIC OF CORONAVIRUSES.
ISOLATES FROM THE FIRST PASSAGE OF AN OP AND AN NP SPECIMEN WERE USED FOR WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING. The genomes from the NP specimen (Genbank accession MT020880) and OP specimen (Genbank accession MT020881) matched each other 100%. The isolates also matched the corresponding clinical specimen 100% (Genbank accession MN985325).
AFTER THE SECOND PASSAGE, OP AND NP SPECIMENS WERE NOT CULTURED SEPARATELY. VIRUS ISOLATE WAS PASSAGED TWO MORE TIMES IN Vero CCL-81 CELLS, and titrated by TCID50. The titers of the third and fourth passages were 8.65 × 106 and 7.65 × 106 TCID50 per mL, respectively."
"WE SUBSEQUENTLY GENERATED A FOURTH PASSAGE STOCK OF SARS-CoV-2 ON VeroE6 CELLS, ANOTHER FETAL RHESUS MONKEY KIDNEY CELL LINE. Viral RNA from SARS-CoV-2 passage four stock was sequenced and confirmed to have no nucleotide mutations compared with the original reference sequence (Genbank accession MN985325). Both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV had been found to grow well on VeroE6 and Vero CCL81 respectively (12, 13). To establish a plaque assay and determine the preferred Vero cell type for quantification, we titered our passage four stock on VeroE6 and VeroCCL81. Following infection with a dilution series, we found that SARS-CoV-2 replicated in both Vero cell types; however, the viral titers were slightly higher in VeroE6 cells than Vero CCL81 (Figure 2A). In addition, plaques were more distinct and visible on Vero E6 (Figure 2B). As early as 2 days post inoculations, VeroE6 cells produced distinct plaques visible with neutral red staining. In contrast, Vero CCL81 produced less clear plaques and was most easily quantitated with neutral red 3 days post inoculation. On the individual plaque monolayers, SARS-CoV-2 infection of Vero E6 cells produced a cytopathic effect with areas of cell clearance (Figure 2C). In contrast, Vero CCL81 had areas of dead cells that had fused to form plaques, but the cells did not clear. Together, THE RESULTS SUGGEST THAT VeroE6 MAY BE THE BEST CHOICE FOR AMPLIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION, but both Vero cell types support amplification and replication of SARS-CoV-2."
"As research is initiated to study and respond to SARS-CoV-2, information about cell lines and types susceptible to infection is needed. THEREFORE, WE EXAMINED THE CAPACITY OF SARS-CoV-2 TO INFECT AND REPLICATE IN SEVERAL COMMON PRIMATE AND HUMAN CELL LINES, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81. We also examined an available big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated with at high MOI and examined 24 hours post infection (Figure 3A). NO CYTOPATHIC EFFECT WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE CELL LINES EXCEPT IN VERO CELLS which grew to >107 PFU at 24 hours post infection. In contrast, both HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest OTHER COMMON CULTURE SYSTEMS INCLUDING MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs ARE UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT SARS-CoV-2 REPLICATION (14–16). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 FAILED TO REPLICATE IN THE BAT EFK3B CELLS which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintain a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines."
"THE SARS-CoV-2 FOURTH PASSAGE VIRUS HAS BEEN SEQUENCED and maintains a nucleotide sequence identical to that of the original US clinical strain. These deposits make it available to the domestic and international public health, academic, and pharmaceutical sectors for basic research, diagnostic development, antiviral testing, and vaccine development."
"Specimen collection
Virus isolation from patient samples was deemed to be non-human subjects research by CDC National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases (research determination 0900f3eb81ab4b6e) Clinical specimens from the first identified US case of COVID-19 acquired during travel to china, were collected as described (1). NASOPHARYNGEAL (NP) AND OROPHARYNGEAL (OP) SWABS in 2 to 3 mL VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIA were collected on day 3 post-symptom onset for molecular diagnosis and frozen. Confirmed PCR- positive specimens were aliquoted and refrozen until virus isolation was initiated.
Cell culture, limiting dilution, and isolation
VERO CCL-81 CELLS WERE USED FOR ISOLATION AND INITIAL PASSAGE. Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells WERE CULTURED IN DULBECCO’S MINIMAL ESSENTIAL MEDIUM (DMEM) SUPPLEMENTED WITH HEAT INACTIVATED FETAL BOVINE SERUM (5 or 10%) AND ANTIBIOTIC/ANTIMYOTIC (GIBCO). Both NP and OP swabs were used for virus isolation. For the isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, 50 μl serum free DMEM was pipetted into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate. One-hundred μl clinical specimens were pipetted into column 1, and then serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. VERO CELLS WERE TRYPSINIZED AND RESUSPENDED IN DMEM + 10% FBS + 2X PENICILLIN-STREPTOMYCIN + 2X ANTIBIOTIC − ANTIMYCOTIC + 2 X AMPHOTERICIN B at 2.5 × 105 cells / ml. ONE HUNDRED μl OF CELL SUSPENSION WERE ADDED DIRECTLY TO THE CLINICAL SPECIMEN DILUTIONS AND MIXED GENTLY BY PIPETTING. The inoculated cultures were grown in a humidified 37°C incubator with 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effect (CPE) daily. Standard plaque assays were used for SARS-CoV-2 based on both SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV protocols (19, 20).
When CPE was observed, the cell monolayers were scrapped with the back of a pipette tip. FIFTY μl OF THE VIRAL LYSATE WERE USED FOR TOTAL NUCLEIC ACID EXTRACTION FOR CONFIRMATORY TESTING AND SEQUENCING. Fifty μl of virus lysate was used to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate."
"Inclusivity / Exclusivity testing
From the wells in which CPE were observed, CONFIRMATORY TESTING WAS PERFORMED USING CDC’s rRT-PCR ASSAY and full genome sequencing (1) The CDC molecular diagnostic assay targets three portions of the N gene, and all three must be positive to be considered positive (https://www.cdc.gov/.../rt-pcr-detection-instructions.html) and (https://www.cdc.gov/.../lab/rt-pcr-panel-primer-probes.html). To confirm that no other respiratory viruses were present, Fast Track respiratory pathogen 33 testing was performed (FTD diagnostics)."
"Whole genome sequencing.
THIRTY-SEVEN PAIRS OF NESTED PCR ASSAYS SPANNING THE GENOME WERE DESIGNED BASED ON THE REFERENCE SEQUENCE, Genbank Accession No. NC045512. NUCLEIC ACID WAS EXTRACTED FROM ISOLATES AND AMPLIFIED BY THE 37 INDIVIDUAL NESTED PCR ASSAYS. Positive PCR amplicons were used individually for subsequent Sanger sequencing and also pooled for library preparation using a ligation sequencing kit (Oxford Nanopore Technologies), subsequently for Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing. CONSENSUS NANOPORE SEQUENCES were generated using minimap 2.17 and samtools 1.9. CONSENSUS SEQUENCES BY SANGER SEQUENCES were generated from both directions using Sequencher 5.4.6, and WERE FURTHER CONFIRMED BY CONSENSUS SEQUENCES GENERATED FROM NANOPORE SEQUENCING."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045
In Summary:
-on January 22nd, 2020, a patient was confirmed positive by the CDC PCR test
- nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) samples were inoculated onto cell cultures and frozen
-viral lysates from cell culture were used for nucleic acid extraction using the CDC PCR test to confirm "SARS-COV-2"
Quick sidenote: the CDC's PCR test was initially recalled due to producing too many false-positives. The new version also produced many false-positives and in one study both the negative controls and water tested positive for "SARS-COV-2:" Obviously, any data coming from their PCR tests should be discounted:
-they observed "Coronavirus-like" morphology/morphogenesis in their unpurified EM images
-unpurified "isolates" from the first passage cell culture of both NP and OP swabs were used for whole-genome sequencing
-after second passage, both NP and OP samples were cultured together in Vero cells
-they generated "viral" stocks from fourth passaged VeroE6 (fetal rhesus monkey kidney) cells
-VeroE6 cells were determined to produce the "virus" the easiest
-they decided to test whether "SARS-COV-2" would replicate in other primate and HUMAN cell lines
-no cytopathic effect (CPE) occurred in any of the other cell lines used, only Vero cells
-they determined that the "virus" COULD NOT infect/replicate in HUMAN nor many other common cell lines including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs nor in Bat EFK3B cells
-the NP and OP swabs were immediately placed in viral transport media
-VeroE6 cells were added to DMEM media along with fetal bovine serum and several antibiotics/antimycotics
-VeroE6 cells were trypsinized and suspended in added DMEM, FBS, 2x penicillin-streptomycin, 2x amphotericin B
-the VeroE6 concoction was added to the NP/OP samples and mixed together
-this unpurified creation was used for total nucleic acid extraction, confirmatory testing, and sequencing
-for Whole-Genome Sequencing, ONLY 37 base pairs were used yet the "SARS-COV-2" genome consists of 30,000 base pairs:
"THIRTY THOUSAND BASE PAIRS MAKE UP THE (relatively tiny) SARS-CoV-2 GENOME. A singular genome holds limited information."
Dr. Tom Cowan did a brilliant breakdown of why this is an issue:
“… we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, THEY FOUND 37 BASE PAIRS FROM UNPURIFIED SAMPLES USING PCR PROBES. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. THEY THEN TOOK THESE 37 SEGMENTS AND PUT THEM INTO A COMPUTER PROGRAM, WHICH FILLED IN THE REST OF THE BASE PAIRS.
“To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn.
“They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”
https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/study-cdc-scientists-make-2-covid-admissions-that-destroy-official-narrative
In this CDC study, we have unpurified cell cultures, faulty PCR tests/data, evidence "SARS-COV-2" can not infect human cells but only Vero cells, and a genome made up almost entirely by consensus computer-algorithms.
In short, more "scientific" FRAUD.
ANIMAL MODELS
ANIMAL MODELS
In order to prove a new pathogenic "virus" exists, Koch's Postulates must be satisfied first.
They are LOGIC-BASED rules and the bare minimum requirements needed to be fulfilled. Postulates 3 and 4 deal with the use of ANIMAL MODELS in order to prove a PURIFIED particle causes the same disease as found in a human host:
3. the pathogen from the pure culture must CAUSE THE DISEASE WHEN INOCULATED INTO A HEALTHY, SUSCEPTIBLE LABORATORY ANIMAL
4. the pathogen MUST BE REISOLATED from the new host and SHOWN TO BE THE SAME as the originally inoculated pathogen
Sadly, even the early "SARS-COV-2" researchers admitted to not fulfilling these basic postulates, specifically in regards to proving pathogenicity in an animal model:
(m.s.d)
In the history of virology, most virologists have decided not to do their experiments on human subjects, as this is considered unethical. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we know of no published study that has used humans as the test subjects. Virologists also admit that in the case of most viral infections, there are no studies available proving infection in animals. How a virus can infect and kill humans—but not animals—is left unexplained. Researchers get around this obvious biological conundrum by saying, “There are no animal models on which to test such-and-such a virus.” In other words, “We know that the virus infects and kills humans even though we’ve never tested the virus on humans because that would be unethical. Therefore, we do our tests on animals, even though when we test animals, they don’t get sick, because they are not proper ‘hosts’ for the virus. So, you’ll just have to trust us.”
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know of two animal model studies that used unpurified “virus,” one in hamsters and one in mice.
In the hamster study,10 researchers took the unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged animal secretions and squirted them down the throats and into the lungs of a group of unfortunate hamsters. Some—but not all—of the hamsters got pneumonia, and some even died. Perplexingly, however, some of the hamsters didn’t even get sick at all, which certainly doesn’t square with the deadly contagious virus theory.
Because there was no comparison group, we also have no idea what would have happened if the researchers had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of the hamsters; probably not anything good.
(all thety really did is, try to test "contagion""and Mock-infected animals were challenged with 100ul of PBS." Skipping over as to how those animals even got sick.
In the mouse study,11 researchers infected both transgenic mice (that is, mice genetically programmed to get sick) and wild (normal) mice with unpurified virus. None of the wild mice exposed to the “virus” got sick. Of the transgenic mice, a statistically insignificant number either lost some fur luster or experienced weight loss. Thus, scientists have not been able to show that the Covid-19 “virus” causes harm to animals.
STUDY witih Hamsters
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184405/pdf/ciaa325.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3p5DowoVQwZZYY15lMNEzHeYCM26HQqyt4QPQKtpAp1Gi-IRt4sMdglcc
Impure materials called a virus isolate were obtained, antibiotics were added, and then the material was cultured in vero cells with various growth stimulating substances.
Experiments only worked on transgenic mice, not regular mice.
7 transgenic mice were injected intranasally (in the nose by a hypodermic) with cell culture material. 3 transgenic control mice were injected with PBS (phosphate buffered saline).
Treated transgenic mice (but not regular mice) lost weight and showed interstitial pneumonia. Maybe some of the cell culture material got into the lungs and caused an immune reaction, infection etc, in mice that could not fight it off like normal, robust, wild-type mice.
By comparison, saline wouldn’t cause these problems.
-D.C.
Study with mice
From two of the original studies:
"ALTHOUGH OUR STUDY DOES NOT FULFILL KOCH'S POSTULATES, our analyses PROVIDE EVIDENCE IMPLICATING 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THE ETIOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include identification of a 2019-nCoV antigen in the lung tissue of patients by immunohistochemical analysis, detection of IgM and IgG antiviral antibodies in the serum samples from a patient at two time points to demonstrate seroconversion, and ANIMAL (monkey) EXPERIMENTS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PATHOGENICITY."
"However, there are still many urgent questions that remain to be answered. THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN 2019-nCoV AND THE DISEASE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS TO FULFILL THE KOCH’S POSTULATES TO ESTABLISH A CAUSATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A MICROORGANISM AND A DISEASE."
In other words, they ASSUMED that the UNPURIFIED cell culture soup they created in a lab (which contains everything from monkey kidney cells, antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, etc. along with the host specimen) was a "virus" without ever proving a pathogenic "virus." They not only ignored Koch's 2nd Postulate stating the particles must be PURE, they entirely skipped over the final two crucial steps of showing that what they created in a lab caused the same disease in animals that it does in humans.
Don't just take my word for it.
From an interview with Xu Jianguo on January 10, 2020, head of an evaluation committee advising the Chinese government:
"Q: Are researchers trying to replicate the disease in lab animals TO PROVE THAT IT IS REALLY THE CAUSE OF THE OUTBREAK?
A: People have recommended that [investigators] do tests to see if the virus can cause the infection in animals, BUT THEY NEED TIME."
Need time, huh?
This is from a review published at the end of June 2020:
"THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR AN IDEAL ANIMAL MODEL THAT CAN REFLECT CLINICAL SYMPTOMS AND UNDERLYING ETIOPATHOGENESIS SIMILAR TO COVID-19 PATIENTS which can be further used for evaluation of underlying mechanisms, potential vaccines, and therapeutic strategies."
"THIS EMPHASIZES THE SURGE FOR A SUITABLE ANIMAL MODEL TO EXPLORE THE PATHOGENESIS and evaluation of countermeasures for the disease."
"The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pathology is linked to viral respiratory infection, hyper-immune response, and coagulopathy (Lin et al.2020; Connors and Levy 2020), therefore, to understand the mechanism or to evaluate therapeutic countermeasures, THE ANIMAL MODELS SHOULD INVOLVE ALL THESE INTERPLAYS IN A SINGLE MODEL."
"Further, VALIDATION OF THE ANIMAL MODEL IS CRUCIAL. The error in the animal experimental study narrows the chances of the potential drugs or repurposing or repositioning drugs or vaccines to translate successfully to clinics and moreover, it is a wastage of resources. Thus, IT IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR TO VALIDATE THE ANIMAL MODEL USING DIFFERENT CRITERIA, for instance, face, construct, and predictive validity (Denayer et al.2014)."
From September 2020:
"ANIMAL MODELS THAT FAITHFULLY REPRODUCE HUMAN COVID-19 (i.e., incorporating the most important disease mechanisms, clinical signs, and response to treatment) ARE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS. As commented by others (Callaway, 2020; Cleary et al., 2020; Cohen, 2020) animal species ranging from mice to non-human primates ARE ACTIVELY BEING INVESTIGATED IN THE QUEST FOR REPRODUCIBLE AND FAITHFUL MODELS OF COVID-19."
This is from a review published in October 2020:
"Most of the animal models of COVID-19 recapitulated the mild pattern of human COVID-19 with full recovery phenotype. NO SEVERE ILLNESS ASSOCIATED WITH MORTALITY WAS OBSERVED, SUGGESTING A WIDE GAP BETWEEN COVID-19 IN HUMANS AND ANIMAL MODELS."
https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-020-03304-8
From a study in November 2020:
"To interpret the process of infection and understand the systematic pathology of the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 in humans, AN EFFECTIVE SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION ANIMAL MODEL IS URGENTLY NEEDED."
Clearly, we have been put under lockdown, quarantined, social distanced, masked, and now vaccinated with a rushed, experimental mRNA gene therapy for a "virus" that has never been proven to exist in a pure form nor proven pathogenic in animal models, thus failing Koch's Postulates.
Related post on Koch's Postulates/Purification:
____
March 17th, 2021
"SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE STRUGGLE TO IDENTIFY SUITABLE ANIMAL MODELS TO STUDY SARS-CoV-2 INFECTIONS....
...ONE TAKE-HOME MESSAGE OF THIS REPORT IS THAT NO ANIMAL MODEL TESTED THUS FAR ENTIRELY REFLECTS HUMAN COVID-19." -
"... to emulate human (patho)physiology, more sophisticated models are required. For example, in severe cases, COVID-19 may become a systemic disease. Whether the related extra-pulmonary organ involvement or multi-organ failure correlates to organ-specific host factor expression (for example, ACE2, TMPRSS2, Furin, CD147, Nrp1) fostering local SARS-CoV-2 propagation or
OR WHETHER IT IS CAUSED BY INDIRECT DETRIMENTAL IMMUNE ACTIVATION REMAINS ELUSIVE."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00305-z?fbclid=IwAR2o_mkJA2szbo-blf4QwNEYhi1D9Ys2ftwqtbwu6yRKz6JsEeBzPbwkBmc
Even though they dont have a a purified isolate, even though they piece together a "viral" genome, and they cannot produce "covid" symptoms in animals they push on to try to prove pathogenisis through immunohistochemistry experiments and still cannot prove causation.
From April 2nd, 2021:
. THE EXISTING SINGLE TRANSGENE MOUSE MODELS POORLY MIMIC THE CLINICAL FEATURES OF COVID-19;,,,
." THE EXISTING SINGLE TRANSGENE MOUSE MODELS POORLY MIMIC THE CLINICAL FEATURES OF COVID-19;...
"...NO ANIMALS DEVELOPED THE SEVERE SYMPTOMS SEEN IN HUMANS although a transient inflammation was OBSERVED INCONSISTENTLY in non-human primates, hamsters and mice (see below). NO CYTOKINE STORMS, COAGULOPATHY, HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE, MULTIPLE ORGAN FAILURE OR DEATH WERE REPORTED."
LACK OF "SARS-COV-2" ANIMAL MODEL:
DROSTEN SARS COV2 PCR FRAUD
Drosten was instrumental in the fraud that was "SARS-COV-1" and naturally, his experience in regards to manipulating the masses with pseudoscience was put to good use with "SARS-COV-2." He has so much experience with these "viruses," he was able to create a "diagnostic" PCR test in silico in the absence of any "SARS-COV-2 isolates" based primarily off of social media reports. That takes talent folks. Highlights below:
DETECTION OF 2019 NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (2019-nCoV) BY REAL-TIME RT-PCR
"Background
The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories AS VIRUS ISOLATES ARE UNAVAILABLE while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travellers does already occur.
AIM
We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT HAVING VIRUS MATERIAL AVAILABLE.
METHODS
Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, ITS DESIGN RELYING ON CLOSE GENETIC RELATEDNESS OF 2019-nCoV WITH SARS CORONAVIRUS, MAKING USE OF SYNTHETIC NUCLEIC ACID TECHNOLOGY.
RESULTS
The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV. Through coordination between academic and public laboratories, we confirmed assay exclusivity BASED ON 297 ORIGINAL CLINICAL SPECIMENS CONTAINING A FULL SPECTRUM OF HUMAN RESPIRATORY VIRUSES. Control material is made available through European Virus Archive – Global (EVAg), a European Union infrastructure project."
"A novel coronavirus currently termed 2019-nCoV was officially announced as the causative agent by Chinese authorities on 7 January. A viral genome sequence was released for immediate public health support via the community online resource virological.org on 10 January (Wuhan-Hu-1, GenBank accession number MN908947 [2]), followed by four other genomes deposited on 12 January in the viral sequence database curated by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID). THE GENOME SEQUENCES SUGGEST PRESENCE OF A VIRUS closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4]. The species also comprises a large number of viruses mostly detected in rhinolophid bats in Asia and Europe."
"Among the foremost priorities to facilitate public health interventions is reliable laboratory diagnosis. In acute respiratory infection, RT-PCR is routinely used to detect causative viruses from respiratory secretions. We have previously demonstrated the feasibility of introducing robust detection technology based on real-time RT-PCR in public health laboratories during international health emergencies by coordination between public and academic laboratories [6-12]. IN ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS, VIRUS ISOLATES WERE AVAILABLE AS THE PRIMARY SUBSTRATE FOR ESTABLISHING AND CONTROLLING ASSAYS AND ASSAY PERFORMANCE.
IN THE PRESENT CASE OF 2019-nCoV, VIRUS ISOLATES OR SAMPLES FROM INFECTED PATIENTS HAVE SO FAR NOT BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITY. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, DESIGNED IN ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE VIRUS ISOLATES OR ORIGINAL PATIENT SPECIMENS. Design and validation were ENABLED BY THE CLOSE GENETIC RELATEDNESS TO THE 2003 SARS-CoV, AND AIDED BY THE USE OF SYNTHETIC NUCLEIC ACID TECHNOLOGY."
"Clinical samples and coronavirus cell culture supernatants for initial assay evaluation
CELL CULTURE SUPERNATANTS CONTAINING TYPED CORONAVIRUSES AND OTHER RESPIRATORY VIRUSES WERE PROVIDED BY CHARITÉ AND UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG RESEARCH LABORATORIES. Respiratory samples were obtained during 2019 from patients hospitalised at Charité medical centre and tested by the NxTAG respiratory pathogen panel (Luminex, S´Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands) or in cases of MERS-CoV by the MERS-CoV upE assay as published before [10]. Additional samples were selected from biobanks at the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Bilthoven, at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, at Public Health England (PHE), London, and at the University of Hong Kong. SAMPLES FROM ALL COLLECTIONS COMPRISED SPUTUM AS WELL AS NOSE AND THROAT SWABS WITH OR WITHOUT VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIUM.
FAECAL SAMPLES CONTAINING BAT-DERIVED SARS-related CoV SAMPLES (identified by GenBank accession numbers) WERE TESTED: KC633203, Betacoronavirus BtCoV/Rhi_eur/BB98–98/BGR/2008; KC633204, Betacoronavirus BtCoV/Rhi_eur/BB98–92/BGR/2008; KC633201, Betacoronavirus BtCoV/Rhi_bla/BB98–22/BGR/2008; GU190221 Betacoronavirus Bat coronavirus BR98–19/BGR/2008; GU190222 Betacoronavirus Bat coronavirus BM98–01/BGR/2008; GU190223, Betacoronavirus Bat coronavirus BM98–13/BGR/2008.
ALL SYNTHETIC RNA USED IN THIS STUDY was photometrically quantified."
"Real-time reverse-transcription PCR
A 25 μL reaction contained 5 μL of RNA, 12.5 μL of 2 × reaction buffer provided with the Superscript III one step RT-PCR system with Platinum Taq Polymerase (Invitrogen, Darmstadt, Germany; containing 0.4 mM of each deoxyribose triphosphates (dNTP) and 3.2 mM magnesium sulphate), 1 μL of reverse transcriptase/Taq mixture from the kit, 0.4 μL of a 50 mM magnesium sulphate solution (Invitrogen), and 1 μg of NONACETYLATED BOVINE SERUM ALBUMIN (Roche). Primer and probe sequences, as well as optimised concentrations are shown in Table 1. ALL OLIGONUCLEOTIDES WERE SYNTHESIZED and provided by Tib-Molbiol (Berlin, Germany). Thermal cycling was performed at 55 °C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95 °C for 3 min and THEN 45 CYCLES of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s."
"The INTENDED CROSS-REACTIVITY OF ALL ASSAYS WITH VIRAL RNA OF SARS-CoV allows us to use the assays WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY ON EXTERNAL SOURCES OF SPECIFIC 2019-nCoV RNA."
"RESULTS
BEFORE PUBLIC RELEASE OF VIRUS SEQUENCES FROM CASES OF 2019-nCoV, WE RELIED ON SOCIAL MEDIA REPORTS ANNOUNCING DETECTION OF A SARS-LIKE VIRUS. WE THUS ASSUMED THAT A SARS-RELATED CoV IS INVOLVED IN THE OUTBREAK. We downloaded all complete and partial (if > 400 nt) SARS-related virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020. The list (n = 729 entries) was manually checked and artificial sequences (laboratory-derived, synthetic, etc), as well as sequence duplicates were removed, resulting in a final list of 375 sequences. THESE SEQUENCES WERE ALIGNED AND THE ALIGNMENT WAS USED FOR ASSAY DESIGN (Supplementary Figure S1). UPON RELEASE OF THE FIRST 2019-nCoV SEQUENCE at virological.org, THREE ASSAYS WERE SELECTED BASED ON HOW WELL THEY MATCHED TO THE 2019-nCoV GENOME (Figure 1). The alignment was complemented by additional sequences released independently on GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org), CONFIRMING THE GOOD MATCHING OF SELECTED PRIMERS to all sequences. Alignments of primer binding domains with 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV as well as selected bat-associated SARS-related CoV are shown in Figure 2."
"Assay sensitivity based on SARS coronavirus virions
To obtain a preliminary assessment of analytical sensitivity, we USED PURIFIED CELL CULTURE SUPERNATANT CONTAINING SARS-CoV STRAIN FRANKFURT-1 VIRIONS GROWN ON VERO CELLS. The supernatant was ultrafiltered and thereby concentrated from a ca 20-fold volume of cell culture supernatant. THE CONCENTRATION STEP SIMULTANEOUSLY REDUCES THE RELATIVE CONCENTRATION OF BACKGROUND NUCLEIC ACIDS SUCH AS NOT VIRION-PACKAGED VIRAL RNA. The virion preparation was quantified by real-time RT-PCR using a specific in vitro-transcribed RNA quantification standard as described in Drosten et al. [8]."
"Discrimination of 2019 novel coronavirus from SARS coronavirus by RdRp assay
FOLLOWING THE RATIONALE THAT SARS-CoV RNA CAN BE USED AS A POSITIVE CONTROL FOR THE ENTIRE LABORATORY PROCEDURE, THUS OBVIATING THE NEED TO HANDLE 2019-nCoV RNA, we formulated the RdRp assay so that it contains two probes: a broad-range probe reacting with SARS-CoV and 2019-nCoV and an additional probe that reacts only with 2019-nCoV. By limiting dilution experiments, we confirmed that both probes, whether used individually or in combination, provided the same LOD for each target virus. The specific probe RdRP_SARSr-P2 detected only the 2019-nCoV RNA transcript but not the SARS-CoV RNA.:
"TO SHOW THAT THE ASSAYS CAN DETECT OTHER BAT-ASSOCIATED SARS-related VIRUSES, WE USED THE E GENE ASSAY TO TEST SIX BAT-DERIVED FAECAL SAMPLES available from Drexler et al. [13] und Muth et al. [14]. These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. DETECTION OF THESE PHYLOGENETIC OUTLIERS within the SARS-related CoV clade SUGGESTS THAT ALL ASIAN VIRUSES ARE LIKELY TO BE DETECTED. This would, theoretically, ensure broad sensitivity even in case of multiple independent acquisitions of variant viruses from an animal reservoir."
"Cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses
Cell culture supernatants containing all endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV)‑229E, ‑NL63, ‑OC43 and ‑HKU1 as well as MERS-CoV were tested in duplicate in all three assays (Table 2). FOR THE NON-CULTIVABLE HCoV-HKU1, supernatant from human airway culture was used. Viral RNA concentration in all samples was determined by specific real-time RT-PCRs and in vitro-transcribed RNA standards designed for absolute quantification of viral load. Additional undiluted (but not quantified) cell culture supernatants were tested as summarised in Table 2. THESE WERE ADDITIONALLY MIXED INTO NEGATIVE HUMAN SPUTUM SAMPLES. None of the tested viruses or virus preparations showed reactivity with any assay."
"TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION DATA BASED ON CELL CULTURE MATERIALS AND SYNTHETIC CONSTRUCTS, as well as results from exclusivity testing on 75 clinical samples, were included in the first version of the diagnostic protocol provided to the WHO on 13 January 2020."
In Summary:
-no "viral isolates" were available at the time Drosten created his PCR test
-the aim of his study was to develop a test without needing "virus" material
-the workflow was based on the "close genetic-relatedness" between "SARS-COV-1" and "SARS-COV-2" (only 79% which is really not close at all) with the use of SYNTHETIC nucleic acid technology
-they based assay exclusivity off of 297 clinical samples containing a range of respiratory "viruses" but none with "SARS-COV-2"
-the genome sequence supplied by the Chinese SUGGESTED a "virus" related to "SARS-COV-1"
-in their previous test developments, "viral isolates" were available as the primary substrate for establishing and controlling assays and assay performance
-since no "virus isolates" were available this time around, they decided that the presumed relation to "SARS-COV-1" was enough to develop a reliable test with the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology
-cell culture supernatant for different "viruses" were provided by the Charite and various other sources
-samples were from sputum as well as nose and throat swabs with or without viral transport media
-they also used fecal samples supposedly containing Bat-related "Coronaviruses"
-synthetic RNA was used in the study
-during RT-PCR, various chemicals were used along with non acetylated bovine serum albumin
-all oligonucleotides were synthesized
-the RT-PCR tests were run to 45 Cycles (remember, according to Fauci, anything above 35 is just dead nucleotides)
-the intended cross-reactivity of all assays to "SARS-COV-1" somehow meant they did not need any "SARS-COV-2" isolates
-they relied on social media reports and assumed from those that a "Coronavirus" related to "SARS-COV-1" was the culprit
-numerous different "SARS-COV-1" genomes (375) were aligned and used to design the assays for "SARS-COV-2"
-3 assays were chosen based on how well they matched up with the "SARS-COV-2" genome
-they used "purified SARS-COV-1" grown on Vero Cells to test analytical sensitivity
-they ultrafiltered the cell culture supernatant to REDUCE (not eliminate) the background nucleic acids such as not virion-packaged viral RNA
-they "rationalized" (cough assumed cough) that "SARS-COV-1" could act as a positive control for "SARS-COV-2" in all tests
-they determined that the E Gene assay can detect ALL ASIAN "VIRUSES
-they also admit HCoV-HKU1 is non-cultivable
-for some reason, they mixed "viral" culture supernatant with "non-viral" human sputum samples to test vs just using the unaltered human samples
-the originally submitted technological qualifications were based on cell culture materials and synthetic constructs
-the study itself was peer-reviewed and accepted in less than 24 hours
For an in-depth breakdown of this the Drosten PCR fraud, read the Corman-Drosten Review Report:
PCR test without any "virus" available
And just in case you thought the CDC was above creating a PCR test without any "virus" available, know you would be wrong.
This is from the FDA emergency use authorization of the CDC's PCR test used in the USA:
"SINCE NO QUANTIFIED VIRUS ISOLATES OF THE 2019-nCoV ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a SUSPENSION OF HUMAN A549 CELLS AND VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIUM (VTM) TO MIMIC CLINICAL SPECIMEN."
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
So it appears there is no need to have "viruses" available to create and validate tests anymore. Drosten and others can get on Twitter, read some social media reports, and then come up with a test for a "novel virus" on their computers without ever needing the actual "virus" present. They can just use the old not-as-closely-related-as-they-would-like-you-to-believe "viruses" as a stand-in. Pretty neat trick with how everything, from the "novel virus" itself to the test to detect it, are all computer-based. Those Virologists sure dodged a bullet with their molecular tricks and consensus computer algorithms as there is no need for the gold standard of a purified/isolated "virus." Social media driven computer-based synthetic creations are all the rage these days.
For more information on Christian Drosten's history with fraud:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTLBAmMolLW8xG7dkOlR5cXG3Uh4l6E_M_YgMTxlxBZrQTYA9pTT8ARQalRC1rZ25NtxoXokaapUWuU/pub
____________
THE SCARY PICTURES - “Appearances Can be Deceiving
"...another nail in the coffin for the existence of SARS-CoV-2. The paper is titled “Appearances Can be Deceiving – Viral-like Inclusions in Covid-19 Negative Renal Biopsies by Electron Microscopy.” The authors are Clarrisa A. Cassol, et al., and the citation is Kidney360 1:824-828, 2020.
Many of you have probably seen the electron-micrograph pictures of SARS-CoV-2, the ones in black and white, with the black dots within the faint outline of the circle. I have attached two such images from papers that claim these photos show direct evidence of the existence of the virus. These are the pictures that virologists show us, not the computer-generated, colorful images that you see in magazines and on the internet. These are the “real” pictures of the virus, and they are offered as “proof” that the virus exists.
However, it turns out these photos are actually NOT corona viruses, and the CDC, among others, has known this fact since at least 2004. The above paper examines the evidence used to claim that these images represent viruses, rather than normal “structures” within a cell, particularly sick cells. Here is what the paper says:
“We have observed morphologically indistinguishable inclusions within podocytes and tubular epithelial cells both in patients negative for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as in renal biopsies from the pre-COVID-19 era” (emphasis added).
In other words, the researchers saw these same structures in people with no evidence of Covid and in samples they took before Covid even happened, before the virus was said to even exist.
In addition, they say:
“We postulated that endogenous mimickers could be present that are morphologically indistinguishable from SARS-CoV-2 virions ultrastructurally.”
And:
“Viral-like inclusions, consisting both of single vesicles with diameters between 50 and 138 nm, as well as packed groups within larger vesicles, were found in all 15 cases, either in podocytes. Tubular epithelia, or vascular epithelial cells (figure 1).”
In all 15 cases that they examined, they found structures identical to what is being called SARS-CoV-2. They were scattered all over the kidneys and blood vessels; they are not viruses, but normal parts of the cells.
Then they go on to describe how these particles come about:
“A number of potential natural mimickers that can generate intracellular groups of round vesicles mimicking SARS-CoV-2 virions could be listed, the most likely being endocytic vesicles and endosomal components such as microvesicular bodies containing exosomes, among others. Endocytosis leads to the formation of 60-120 nm vesicles, which is within the size range described for SARS-CoV-2 (60-140nm). These endocytic vesicles may be coated by different proteins, one of the most common being clathrin. The presence of coating proteins may be responsible for the presence of an electron-dense area surrounding these vesicles, giving the appearance of a viral corona.”
In other words, remember the famous “corona” on the corona virus? It turns out it’s just a common protein coating on normal vesicles, picking up the dyes in the electron-microscope preparation. The corona appearance is just another creative fiction, dreamed up by virologists and their graphic design teams.
Finally, the paper goes on to say that, naturally, you see more of these particles in sick people than in healthy people, which is exactly what I have been suggesting this past year. Dead and dying cells make these particles in the dying process and partly to get rid of poisons.
But the final nail comes in this quote:
“The potential for confusion of coronavirus particles with normal cellular components was in fact highlighted in a detailed ultrastructural study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of SARS-CoV responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak.”[1]
In other words, the CDC in 2004 knew that researchers couldn’t reliably know these particles were coronavirus particles. Not a word has been heard about this since. All virologists use these pictures as proof of the existence of this virus.
[1] GoldsmithCS, Tatti, TD, Ksiazek TG, Rollin PE, Comer JA, Lee WW, Rota PA, Bankamp B, Belini WJ, Saki, SR: Ultrastructural characterization of SARS coronavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 10: 320-326, 2004.
_
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."
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."
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."
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"
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."
FOR A DEEPER INVESTIGATION INTO THE PROBLEMS WITH THE IMAGES OF ALEDGED PATHOGEN SEE THE LINK BELOW:
SUCH AS:
__
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.
_
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.
Below is a list of the various subcellular structures which mimic "viruses."
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...?
_________________
It seems there is no evidence that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called COVID 19.
...research published by the Spanish medical journal D-Salud-Discovery.
The genetic primers and probes used in RT-PCR tests to identify SARS-CoV-2 do not target anything specific. I followed the search techniques outlined in this English translation of their report and can corroborate the accuracy of their claims about the nucleotide sequences listed in the World Health Organisations protocols.
D-Salud-Discovery state there are no tests capable of identifying SARS-CoV-2. Consequently, all claims about the alleged impact of COVID 19 on population health are groundless.
IDENTIFICATION OF WHAT EXACTLY?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). They declared a global COVID 19 pandemic on March 11th 2019.
The WHO’s Laboratory testing guidance states:
The etiologic agent [causation for the disease] responsible for the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan has been identified as a novel betacoronavirus, (in the same family as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) via next generation sequencing (NGS) from cultured virus or directly from samples received from several pneumonia patients.”
The WHO’s claim is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes the disease COVID-19. They also allege this virus has been clearly identified by researchers in Wuhan.
In the WHO’s Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1, they state:
The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020……On 12 January 2020, China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.”
These two statements from the WHO clearly suggest the SARS-CoV-2 virus was isolated (meaning purified for study) and then genetic sequences were identified from the isolated sample. From this, diagnostic kits were developed and distributed globally to test for the virus in towns, cities and communities around the world. According to the WHO and Chinese researchers, these tests will find the virus that causes COVID 19.
Yet the WHO also state:
Working directly from sequence information, the team developed a series of genetic amplification (PCR) assays used by laboratories.”
The Wuhan scientists developed their genetic amplification assays from “sequence information” because there was NO ISOLATED, PURIFIED SAMPLE OF THE SO CALLED SARS COV-2 VIRUS. They also showed electron microscope images of the newly discovered virions (the spiky protein ball containing the viral RNA.)
However, such protein structures are not unique. They look just like other round vesicles, such as endocytic vesicles and exosomes.
Virologists claim that it is not possible to “isolate” a virus because they only replicate inside host cells. They add that Koch’s postulates do not apply because they relate to bacteria (which are living organisms). Instead, virologists observe the virus’ cytopathogenic effects (CPE), causing cell mutation and degradation, in cell cultures.
When Chinese researchers first sequenced the full SARS-CoV-2 genome they observed CPE IN VERO E6 AND HUH7 CELLS. Vero E6 are an immortalised monkey cell line and Huh7 are immortalised cancer (tumorigenic) cells. Meaning they have been maintained in vitro (in petri dish cultures) for many years.
Central to the official SARS-CoV-2 story is the idea that it is a zoonotic virus, capable of bridging the species gap from animals to humans. When scientists from the US CDC “infected” various cells with the novel virus they noted the following:
We examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549) [lung celles], human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 [monkey cells]… NO CYTOPATHIC EFFECT WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE CELL LINES EXCEPT IN VERO CELLS [monkey cells]…HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only MODEST viral replication and A549 cells [HUMAN LUNG TISSUE CELLS] WERE INCOMPATIBLE with SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The CDC did not observe any CPE in human cells. They saw no evidence that this alleged virus caused any human illness. Nor did this supposed human virus show any notable replication in human cells, suggesting human to human infection would be impossible.
Noting this problem, a team of Polish scientists introduced this sequenced “virus” to human epithethelium (airway) cells. They observed the effects on these HAE cultures for 5 days. They noted much greater replication than the CDC scientists but ultimately stated:
“We did not observe any release of the virus from the basolateral side of the HAE culture.”
Meaning they did not see any evidence of the supposed virions breaching the cell wall membrane. Again suggesting this so called virus isn’t infectious in human beings.
ITS IS NOT CLEAR THAT SARS-CoV-2 IS A HUMAN VIRUS CAPABLE OF CAUSING ILLNESS. It may not even physically exist. Is it nothing more than a concept based upon predictive genetic sequences?
VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY
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). (WHICH IS VERY LOW A %) 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 (FILLING IN THE GAPS) 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 sample of any virus. All they had were percentage sequence matches to other percentage sequence matches.
ISOLATE NOTHING
Scientists are very annoyed because they keep saying the virus has been isolated but no one believes them. This is because, as yet, no one has provided a single purified sample of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. What we have instead is a completed genome and, as we are about to discover, it isn’t particularly convincing.
Investigative journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter asked some of the scientists who said they had images of SARS-C0V-2 virions to confirm these were images of an isolated, purified, virus. None of them could.
In Australia scientists from the Doherty Institute, announced that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When asked to clarify the scientists said:
“We have short (RNA) sequences from the diagnostic test that can be used in the diagnostic tests”
This explains why the Australian government state:
The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base…There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.”
In The UK, in July, a group of concerned academics wrote a letter to the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in which they asked him to:
Produce independently peer reviewed scientific evidence proving that the Covid-19 virus has been isolated.”
To date they have not received a reply.
Similarly, UK researcher Andrew Johnson made a Freedom of Information Request to Public Health England (PHE). He asked them to provide him with their records describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus. To which they responded:
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way suggested by your request.”
Canadian researcher Christine Massey made a similar freedom of information request, asking the Canadian government the same. To which the Canadian government replied:
Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were UNABLE to locate any records responsive to your request.”
In the U.S. the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel state:
…NO QUANTIFIED VIRUS ISOLATES of the 2019-nCoV are currently available……..Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Last updated on 13th July 2020, the CDC are yet to obtain any pure viral sample from any patient said to have the disease of COVID-19. They openly admit their tests don’t necessarily show if SARS-CoV-2 is either present or causes COVID 19.
We are told that none of this matters. That we are ignorant and just don’t understand virology. Therefore, we must accept pictures of things we know could be something else and genetic sequences (which could be anything else) as conclusive proof that this virus, and the disease it is supposed to cause, are real.
TESTING FOR NOTHING
The WHO, and every government, think tank, policy steering committee, government scientific advisor, supranational institutions and others who promote the official COVID 19 narrative, assert that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID 19.
While no one has ever produced a sample of this supposed virus, the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome has been published. It is in the public domain.
Key genetic sequences, in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, are said to have specific functions. These are the target proteins that scientists test for to identify the presence of the “virus”. These include:
RNA-polymerase (Rd-Rp) gene – This enables the SARS-CoV-2 RNA to replicate inside the cytoplasm of COVID 19 diseased epithelial cells.
S gene (Orf2) – this glycoprotein forms the spike on the SARS-CoV-2 virion surface which supposedly facilitates SARS-CoV-2 binding to the ACE2 receptors on cells, allowing the RNA inside the virion protein shell (capsid) to pass into the now infected cell.
E gene (Orf1ab) – small membrane protein used in viral assembly
N gene (Orf9a) – the nucleocapsid gene which binds the RNA in capsid formation
The WHO maintain a publicly available record of the RT-PCR primers and probes used to test for SARS-CoV-2. The primers are specific nucleotide sequences that bind (anneal) to the antisense and sense strands of the synthesised cDNA (called forward and reverse primers respectively.)
The cDNA strands separate when heated and reform when cooled. Prior to cooling, nucleotide sequences called probes are introduced to anneal to specific target regions of the suspected viral genome. During amplification, as the regions between primers elongate, when a primer strikes a probe, the probe decays releasing a fluorescent or dye which can then be read by researchers.
It is the identification of these markers which scientists claim to prove the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a sample.
Something else which is publicly available is the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST). This allows anyone to compare published nucleotide sequences with all those stored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) genetic database called GenBank. Therefore we can BLAST the claimed SARS-CoV-2 primers, probes and target gene sequences.
The WHO’s forward, reverse primers and probe protocols, for the alleged SARS-CoV-2 viral genome, are based upon RdRp, Orf1, N and E gene profiles. Anyone can run them through BLAST to see what we find.
The vital RdRP nucleotide sequence, used as a forward primer is – ATGAGCTTAGTCCTGTTG. If we run a nucleotide BLAST this is recorded as a complete SARS-CoV-2 isolate with a 100% matched sequence identity. Similarly the reverse E gene primer sequence – ATATTGCAGCAGTACGCACACA – reveals the presence of the Orf1ab sequence which also identifies SARS-CoV-2.
However, BLAST also enables us to search the nucleotide sequences of the microbial and human genomes. If we search for the RdRp SARS-CoV-2 sequence it reveals 99 human chromosome with a 100% sequence identity match. The Orf1ab (E gene) returns 90 with a 100% sequence identity match to human chromosomes.
Doing the same for these sequences with a microbial search finds 92 microbes with a 100% match to the SARS-CoV-2 E gene and 100 matched microbes, with a 100% sequence identity, to the vital SARS-CoV-2 RdRp gene.
Whenever we check the so-called unique genetic markers for SARS-CoV-2, recorded in the WHO protocols, we find complete or high percentage matches with various fragments of the human genome. This suggests that the genetic sequences, which are supposed to identify SARS-CoV-2, are not unique. They could be anything from microbial sequences to fragments of human chromosomes.
So called fact checkers, like Reuters’ Health Feedback project, have been quick to dismiss the claims of those who have noticed the apparent lack of specificity in the supposed SARS-CoV-2 genome.
Using a slew of strawman arguments like, “this claim suggests every test should be positive,” (which it doesn’t) their debunking attempt runs something like this:
Primers are designed to bind to specific nucleotide sequences that are unique to the virus. The forward primer may bind to a particular chromosome but the reverse primer doesn’t bind to the same chromosome and so the chromosome is not present in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Moreover because the forward and perverse primers envelop the sequence to be amplified the cDMA sequence between primers is unique to the virus.
This seems to deliberately misrepresent the significance of these findings by forwarding an argument that no one, other than the fact checkers themselves, are making. BLAST searches show that these target sequences are not unique to SARS-CoV-2. Nor do all targets need to be found for a result to be deemed positive.
Moroccan researchers investigated the epidemiology of Moroccan alleged cases of SARS-CoV-2. Nine percent were positive for three genes, eighteen percent were positive for two genes and seventy three percent for just one. As we have just discussed, many may have been positive for none.
This is entirely in keeping with WHO’s test guidelines. They state:
“An optimal diagnosis consists of a NAAT [nucleic acid amplification test] with at least two genome-independent targets of the SARS-CoV-2; however, in areas where transmission is widespread, a simple single-target algorithm can be used……One or more negative results do not necessarily rule out the SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Regardless of the spurious arguments of well funded fact checkers, if the forward and reverse primers identify junk, perhaps one being the fragment of a chromosome and the other a microbial sequence, then the amplified region between them is probably junk too.
The argument that RT-PCR only finds RNA is specious. Natural transcription (the separation of DNA strands) occurs during gene expression. No one is saying whole chromosomes or microbes are sequenced in the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. Though they may, for all we know. They are saying the alleged markers, used to test for this supposed virus, are not fit for purpose.
RT-PCR tests do not sequence the entire genome. They look for incidents of specific probe florescence to indicate the presence of sequences said to exist. These sequences are defined by MN908947.1 and the subsequent updates. These primers and probes could reveal nothing but RNA matches extracted from non-coding, sometimes called “junk,” DNA (cDNA.)
For example the SARS-CoV-2 S gene is meant to be highly specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome. The target sequence is – TTGGCAAAATTCAAGACTCACTTTC. A microbial BLAST search returns 97 microbial matches with 100% identity sequence match. The lowest identity percentage match, within the top 100, is 95%. A human genome BLAST also finds a 100% sequence match to 86 human chromosome fragments.
No matter where you look in the supposed genome of SARS-CoV-2, there is nothing in the WHO’s test protocols that clearly identifies what it is. The whole genome could be false. The tests do not prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2. All they reveal is a soup of unspecified genetic material.
If so, as there are no isolates or purified samples of the virus, without a viable test, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists. Therefore, nor is there any evidence that a disease called COVID 19 exists.
This infers that there is no scientific basis for any claims about COVID 19 case numbers, hospital admissions or mortality figures. All measures taken to combat this deadly virus are quite possibly founded upon nothing.
__________
THE TESTING PANDEMIC:
It is obvious if one were to look at this situation critically and logically that there has never been a "viral" pandemic. This has been and always will be a TESTING pandemic. So how does one create a testing pandemic without a "virus"?
SEE MORE HERE :
MORE papers on PCR
Problems with "SARS-COV-2" Genomes:
There are many problems when using "Viral" Genomics to find and determine a "virus." There are issues of cost, biases, contamination, technical errors, reproducibility, etc. On top of these issues is the fact that a genome is only as good as its reference genome.
What is a reference genome?
"A reference genome (also known as a reference assembly) is a DIGITAL NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCE DATABASE, assembled by scientists AS A REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE OF THE SET OF GENES IN ONE IDEALIZED INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM OF A SPECIES."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_genome
The problem when relying on reference genomes to sequence a novel "virus," as in the case of "SARS-COV-2," is the limitations of the technologies and the many errors that can and do occur. If these errors are in the reference genome, they will transfer over into the new genome. You end up building a genome on top of a house of cards.
Highlighted below are some of the various issues with the technology and why we cannot rely on strings of letters in a database to serve as proof of a "virus."
First, we see the amount of data is crucial for accuracy yet the issue of determining the optimal amount necessary is unresolved:
"The use of next-generation sequencing has become an established method for virus detection. Efficient study design for ACCURATE DETECTION RELIES ON THE OPTIMAL AMOUNT OF DATA REPRESENTING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF A VIRUS GENOME."
"Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has proven to be a valuable tool for virus detection, discovery or diversity studies and has increased in popularity, while decreasing in cost. THE PERCENTAGE GENOME-WIDE COVERAGE OBTAINED, EITHER THROUGH THE MAPPING OF READS OR CONFIGS (assembled reads) ONTO A REFERENCE GENOME, CAN SERVE AS A FORM OF VIRUS DETECTION. The confidence in a positive identification increases with greater coverage. DUE TO THE VARIATION IN THE NUMBER OF READS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT GENOMIC REGIONS, AND UNEVEN COVERAGE OF THE VIRAL GENOME IS OFTEN OBSERVED in RNA-Seq data. Variation in sequencing depth will, consequently, influence the percentage of genome coverage that can be obtained. IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO FIND THE OPTIMAL AMOUNT OF DATA NEEDED TO COVER THE COMPLETE OR ALMOST COMPLETE GENOME WITHOUT GENERATING AN EXCESS OF SEQUENCE DATA."
In spite of decreases in the cost of NGS, THERE IS STILL A NEED TO DETERMINE THE OPTIMAL AMOUNT OF DATA NEEDED FOR ACCURATE AND RELIABLE VIRUS DETECTION. The number of reads required for detection is INFLUENCED BY THE NUMBER OF VIRUS-DERIVED READS IN THE DATA, THE SIZE OF THE VIRUS GENOME AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE VIROME (not assessed here). SOME VIRUSES OR VIROIDS MAY BE MORE REPRESENTED IN THE DATA depending on (i) the degree of infection, which may be host and/or virus dependent, (ii) the plant response to infection in the case of sRNAs and (iii) THE NATURE OF THE GENOME IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT LIBRARY TYPES (i.e., DNA, poly(A)-selected RNA, ribo-depleted RNA libraries)."
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/.../s12985-016-0539-x
Second, we see that analysis of the NGS data is complex and that a range of internal biases and errors can lead to false results and misdiagnosis:
"THE ANALYSIS OF NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING (NGS) DATA IS COMPLEX, owing to the breadth of sequences tested AND THE RANGE OF INTERNAL BIASES AND ERRORS. In a clinical context, THIS CAN LEAD TO FALSE POSITIVES AND FALSE NEGATIVES, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR MISDIAGNOSIS."
"Next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides a broad investigation of the genome, and it is being readily applied for the diagnosis of disease-associated genetic features. However, the INTERPRETATION OF NGS DATA REMAINS CHALLENGING OWING TO THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE GENOME AND THE TECHNICAL ERRORS THAT ARE INTRODUCED DURING SAMPLE PREPARATION, SEQUENCING AND ANALYSIS."
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.44
Finally, here we see many issues regarding the use of NGS to obtain accurate genome assembly and the many errors that occur such as: mix-ups, contamination, mutations, labeling and sample issues, considerable nucleotide variations/mutations in lines thought to be isogenic, dramatic variations from reference genomes, a reproducibility crisis, ill-suited technology for microbe sequencing, unavailable or incomplete reference genomes, short reads hampering the ability to resolve repetitive regions, etc.
"Laboratory strains, cell lines, and other genetic materials CHANGE HANDS FREQUENTLY IN THE LIFE SCIENCES. DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO MIX-UPS, CONTAMINATION, AND ACCUMULATION OF SECONDARY MUTATIONS, VERIFICATION OF STRAINS AND SAMPLES IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED PART OF MANY EXPERIMENTAL WORKFLOWS."
"The frequent transfer of genetic materials between life science organizations INTRODUCES OPPORTUNITIES FOR QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES. Genetic mutations accumulate naturally over time, and HUMAN ERRORS IN LABELING AND SAMPLE PREPARATION ARE UNAVOIDABLE. Anecdotally, it is NOT UNCOMMON FOR RESEARCHERS TO COMPLAIN OF SAMPLES EXHIBITING UNEXPECTED BEHAVIORS, ONLY TO LATER DISCOVER THAT THE GENETIC MATERIAL THEY’RE WORKING WITH IS NOT AS EXPECTED.
Laboratory strains, cell lines, and mutant collections EXHIBIT CONSIDERABLE NUCLEOTIDE VARIATION AND BACKGROUND MUTATIONS EVEN AMONG LINES THOUGHT TO BE ISOGENIC 1,2,3,4. Despite a growing awareness, CELL-LINE CONTAMINATION AND MISIDENTIFICATION ARE PERSISTENT PROBLEMS, particularly in mammalian cell research 5,6,7,8,9. Comparably, much less attention has been paid to the potential for similar issues in non-mammalian samples. Yet EVEN COMMONLY USED PLASMIDS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO VARY DRAMATICALLY FROM THEIR PUBLISHED SEQUENCE 10."
"THE METHODS CURRENTLY USED TO VERIFY SAMPLES/STRAINS ARE BIASED TOWARDS A PARTICULAR GOAL. For instance, diagnostic techniques such as PCR, targeted sequencing, or restriction enzyme-based methods are often used to identify whether or not a marker gene OR KNOWN SEQUENCE variant is present, or for analysis of variable repeat regions such as in 16 s rRNA profiling 12,13. THESE APPROACHES ARE LIMITED TO PARTICULAR REGIONS OF THE GENOME OR ARE INSUFFICIENTLY SENSITIVE FOR CAPTURING MANY TYPES OF SEQUENCE VARIATIONS 2,14,15."
"GIVEN REPORTS THAT THE LIFE SCIENCES ARE FACING A REPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS, it is more important than ever for researchers to verify the samples and strains they work with."
"Many tools have been developed for assembling sequenced genomes and detecting variants by aligning sequencing reads to a reference genome18, but these tools have been largely developed and validated using human sequencing data. THE SAME TOOLS MAY NOT PERFORM WELL WHEN ANALYZING MICROBIAL SEQUENCING DATA DUE TO DIFFERING PLOIDY, GENOME SIZE, AND MUTATION RATES. The applicability of assembly and, especially, variant calling tools to microbial sample and strain verification HAS NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY EXPLORED."
"An ideal approach to sample verification by WGS would be to sequence the sample, assemble the genome, and then compare the assembled genome to the exact reference genome (the genetic background plus any known variations). Unfortunately, THERE IS NOT A FINISHED REFERENCE GENOME AVAILABLE FOR THE GENETIC BACKGROUND USED IN OUR ANALYSIS (BY4741), DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS A COMMONLY USED LABORATORY STRAIN. We thus conducted reference-based assemblies USING THE CLOSELY RELATED S288C GENOME."
"ALTHOUGH COMPARABLE to the previously published BY4741 draft genome27, THE QUALITY METRICS OF ALL ASSEMBLIES VARIED MARKEDLY from the S288C reference in number of contigs and N50 values."
"A MEANINGFUL DIRECT COMPARISON OF OUR ASSEMBLED GENOMES WITH THE REFERENCE WOULD REQUIRE A MORE COMPLETE ASSEMBLY THAN WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH USING SHORT READS ALONE. As such, we conducted the remainder of our analysis by aligning trimmed reads to the reference genome."
"While this approach was successful in identifying the mutation that was likely the cause for an unexpected phenotype, THERE MAY BE MORE CHANGES TO THE GENOME THAT WERE MISSED. Clearly, UNEXPECTED MUTATIONS IN COMMON LABORATORY CELL LINES CANNOT BE IGNORED, BUT THE TECHNOLOGY NEEDED TO GET A CLEAR VISION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM IS UNDERDEVELOPED.
THE VARIANT-FINDING TOOLS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS WERE NOT IDEALLY SUITED TO VERIFICATION WORKFLOWS. Most data analysis pipelines, including those described here, rely on ad-hoc or heuristic decision points that require an advanced understanding of the software tools used for analysis19. Analyzing the results required MANUALLY VALIDATING THE CALLS by visualizing the reads, as well as looking up the function of each individual gene – processes that are tedious, time consuming, AND POTENTIALLY ERROR-PRONE. Additionally, the SNPs/INDELs called differed dramatically depending on the tools and parameters used. NONE OF THE TOOLS AND PARAMETERS TESTED SUCCESSFULLY IDENTIFIED ALL OF THE KNOWN INDELs (Table 3). It was only when we adjusted the parameters to find the known INDELS, that we identified a large transposon insertion in an important gene. In conclusion, COMMONLY USED SOFTWARE TOOLS COULD NOT RELIABLY RETURN EXPECTED OUTCOMES, WERE INDIVIDUALLY TOO NARROW IN FOCUS, AND COLLECTIVELY TOO SENSITIVE TO PARAMETERS TO BE INTEGRATED INTO A CONSISTENT PIPELINE FOR VERIFICATION BY WGS."
"Before WGS can be used for routine sample and strain validation, genome finishing also needs to be streamlined and made more affordable, SUCH THAT REFERENCE GENOMES ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL COMMONLY USED LABORATORY STRAINS. THE SHORTCOMINGS OF USING SHORT READ SEQUENCING IN GENOME ASSEMBLY HAVE BEEN WELL REPORTED. In the described use case, THE USE OF SHORT READS SIGNIFICANTLY HAMPERED OUR ABILITY TO RESOLVE REPETITIVE REGIONS OF THE GENOME."
"Variability and repetitive sequences (such as at telomeres, transposons, and ribosomal RNA genes), on the one hand, complicate analysis by WGS, but, on the other hand, EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF FREQUENTLY VERIFYING STRAINS, BECAUSE THE GENOME IS A LIVING DYNAMIC STRUCTURE, NOT A RIGID SET OF PERMANENT INSTRUCTIONS."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62364-6
Keep in mind that when attempting to sequence the genome of a "virus," they do not PURIFY/ISOLATE a "virus" from everything else first. They assume that they can accurately sequence the genome from cell cultures which contain animal cells (usually African Green Monkey Kidneys), antibiotics, fetal bovine serum, and various other "nutrients" mixed together along with the human sample. It is well known that the antibiotics alone will alter the materials in the culture, as is the case with the fetal bovine serum as well.
They also do not account for exosomes or other extracellular vesicles that are guaranteed to be within the sample.
Taking everything into consideration, do you feel confident that "Viral" Genomics can accurately identify a "novel virus?"
Related posts on the problems with "Viral" Genomics:
Related posts on the problems with Reference Genomes:
___
Two undeniable facts about "SARS-COV-2" (and any other "virus" for that matter):
1. "SARS-COV-2" has NEVER been properly purified/isolated directly from an unaltered sample taken from a sick patient, EM photographed, characterized, sequenced, and proven pathogenic by infecting an animal in a natural way.
2. Without purification/isolation, the PCR, antigen, and antibody tests are all MEANINGLESS. This is why they come with disclaimers such as this:
"DETECTION OF VIRAL RNA MAY NOT INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF INFECTIOUS VIRUS OR THAT INFLUENZA OR SARS-CoV-2 VIRUSES ARE THE CAUSATIVE AGENT FOR CLINICAL SYMPTOMS."
Due to these two undeniable facts, there is no basis and no credible evidence for lockdowns, quarantines, social-distancing, masks, vaccines, etc.
my hope is that it compels you to try and prove me wrong. I hope you decide to no longer sit on the sidelines and look at the "science" which has been presented to us as "evidence." I hope you look into:
-"virus" purification/isolation
-the faults of different tests
-the manipulated statistics
-the genomes/variants and how they are created
-the lack of credible science and reproducibility
My hope is that through this process, you will come to realize what myself and many others have come to realize: there is no "virus," there is no pandemic, there is no need for masks/vaccines, and there is no need for FEAR.
The worst thing one can do at this time is be indifferent to all of this and just assume it will end. There is far too much at stake for our us and for our future generations.
Don't sit helplessly on the sidelines anymore.
Be a part of the solution.
__
Apparently, disease investigations are greatly biased against
toxicology; witness the usual omission and avoidance of toxicology.
Virology stands on relatively weak ground, having created its own
standards of proof for causation that would never hold in any other
science.
Money influences the theater of medical science and viruses have few
dollars to spend on lawyers and laboratories, whereas chemical poisons are
defended by the world's largest corporations. Mere association seems
sufficient to identify and declare a virus the culprit.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/ddt-and-polio?fbclid=IwAR1abs77wnl4XmwMH6AE6FHIcI7sv7EKMiN-t5grWoR5UECxbNKpORUOfK4
A huge problem for Virologists is that there is no way that they can claim what they present as evidence of a "virus" has any relation to natural particles that occur in vivo, or within a living organism....
VERY kEY DOC HERE:
__
In Conclusion
Problems can only be solved by correctly identifying their root causes so that measures can be taken to mitigate or even eliminate those causal factors. The medical establishment does not function from a correct understanding of the functions of the human body or of the real nature and causes of disease; it is for this reason that the current medical system can never solve the problem of human disease, as indicated in a quote attributed to Voltaire that,
“Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing.”
A paradigm shift is clearly needed; one in which we take responsibility for our own actions and therefore take control not only over our own bodies but over all aspects of our lives. We owe it to ourselves and to all future generations; the alternative – a life of complete servitude – is unthinkable.
FOR WHERE I GET THE BEST STUFF - HIGHLIGHTS AND INVESTIOGATIONS INTO ALMOST EVERY AREA OF VIROLOGY - BREAKDOWN OF THEIR OWN PAPERS - MIKE STONE WON THE OUT-THINK COVID AWARD
BOOM! - I CAN NOT OVERSTATE HOW IMPORTANT THIS MATERIAL IS!
Please continue the complete tour of Pandemic Theater here:
SO IF NOT A VIRUS WHAT IS making people sick:
SEE HERE :
Comments