LIAR LIAR WORLD ON FIRE

“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

"I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV2" Michael Laue of the Robert Koch Institue - Sept 4, 2020

THIS IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY- HUMAN RIGHTS - & SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

"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

https://newswithviews.com/no-governments-have-isolated-covid-19-virus-what-does-that-mean/

THE GREAT RESET COVID 19 - THE NAME OF KLAUSS SCHWABS BOOK IS A : power shift away from the people, constitutional governments, and nation states to big banks, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Agra, global corporations, and unelected global bureaucrats like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab of the The World Economic Forum.

15K-155K DEAD FROM VAX - has zero benefits

ASYMPTOMATIC SPEAD IS DEFINATLY A LIE. (Of course, spread in general is the bigger lie )

PCR Test doesnt work, AT ALL for what it is being used for.

PCR RULES IN PORTUGESE COURT UNFIT FOR PURPOSE -

IDK WHERE TO START, HOW ABOUT SOME REAL SCIENCE TALK TO SOLIDIFY OUR POSITION

____________

“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 don't 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

https://newswithviews.com/no-governments-have-isolated-covid-19-virus-what-does-that-mean/

____________

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!

_____________

PROOF OF PATHOGENIC VIRUSES?

TESTING PATHOGENESIS

Leaving aside the fact that virologists never actually isolate and purify viruses—which they openly admit and which we have now ex­plained—let’s assume that the unpurified fluid they use does contain the relevant virus and, therefore, should be able to transmit infection. After “isolating” a virus, virologists have three “hosts” they can use in their attempts to prove that viruses cause illness: they can expose hu­mans to the virus; they can expose animals to the virus; or they can use tissue cultures taken from various animal or human sources and expose the tissue cultures to the virus.

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.

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.

__

The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenic­ity—the method they usually rely on—is to infect human and animal tissue with a “culture” of the virus to see what happens. As we have already pointed out, this inoculation of solutions reportedly containing the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.

Nevertheless, researchers used this third approach in a study entitled, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal in June 2020.12 The purpose of the study was for a group of about thirty-five virologists to describe the state of the sci­ence dealing with the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.

First, in the Methods section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence.”12 What this means is that they actually looked at a mere thirty-seven primers out of the approximately thirty thousand base pairs claimed to be the genome of an intact virus.

Next, the virologists took these thirty-seven segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the genome. This computer-generation step—called “whole genome sequencing”—con­stitutes scientific fraud of the highest order.

Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claims to have found a unicorn because the group has a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail and a sliver of a horn. After putting that information into a computer and programming it to re-create the unicorn, they claim that this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they have never actually seen a unicorn, so they could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with an actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the authors of the June study report that they decided on the virus’s real genome by “consensus”—in other words, by vote.12 Because different computer programs will come up with differ­ent versions of the imaginary “unicorn” (virus), scientists have to come together as a group and decide which is the “real” imaginary unicorn. (By the way, this is also how scientists characterized the measles “virus”—by consensus!)

The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, however, a finding so shocking that it is hard to believe what we are reading. Sum­marizing their procedures in the paper’s Results section, the authors explain that they “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 cells.” Their aim was to monitor “cytopathic effects” (CPEs)—meaning structural changes in host cells caused by “viral invasion”—where the infecting virus causes either lysis (breaking up) of the host cell or, if the cell dies without lysis, an inability to reproduce. Both of these effects are said to occur due to CPEs. Yet, as the authors plainly state, though each cell line “was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h post-infection,” the investigators observed no CPE “in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells.”12

So did this viral material with its “inti­mately twisted genes” commandeer the cellular biochemistry and throw wrenches into the cel­lular factories, while other viral proteins built nurseries for making new viruses? Nothing of the sort! In fact, the shocking thing about these findings is that, using their own methods, the vi­rologists found that solutions claimed to contain SARS-CoV-2—as well as poisons, even in high amounts—were 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 infective only to Vero monkey kidney cells, and only when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin)—drugs known to be toxic to the kidneys—to the mix.

Interestingly, the authors don’t mention this important fact in their conclusions. Only virologists who read the whole paper will find out that if they want to grow the virus, they needn’t bother to use human cell lines. As you can read yourself, in all three human cell lines, no CPE (meaning no cell death, no infection) was observed. Only Vero monkey kidney cells were adversely affected—and remember, the material injected into the Vero cells contained kidney toxins. Basically, the study proved that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not infect human tissue. Meanwhile, we have worldwide lock­downs predicated on the idea that something called “coronavirus” is highly infectious and causes disease.

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Another study sent to us comes with the fan­cy title, “A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vec­tor with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity.”13 In the “Viruses and Cells” portion of the methods section, the researchers explain that they used “wild type chimpanzee adenovirus isolate Y25. . . originally obtained from William Hillis, John Hopkins University of Medicine [sic].” This virus was then “passaged in HEK293A cells (Invitrogen, Cat. R705-07) and purified by CsCl gradient ultracentrifuga­tion.” Finally, “Viral DNA was phenol extracted for genomic sequencing and cloning.”

In other words, the researchers purchased some material (not properly isolated even though it is called an “isolate”), which they then “pas­saged” through human embryonic kidney cells (called HEK293A) and “purified” by CsCl gradient. This “purification” method separates DNA molecules (not viruses) after mixing them with cesium chloride (a heavy metal salt) and ethidium bromide (a mutagen that can affect DNA biological processes like DNA replication and transcription).14 This is the same smoke and mirrors we have seen before—not true separa­tion and isolation but “surrogate” techniques that use various poisons.

Another study sent to us, a preprint pub­lished on June 23, 2020, is entitled, “SARS-CoV-2 Structure and Replication Characterized by in situ Cryo-electron Tomography” (cryo-ET).15 The authors begin with the creed of the faithful: “β-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus (MERS-CoV) are highly contagious pathogens that can cause severe lower respiratory infec­tions. At the end of 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, likely through zoonotic transmission via a bat reservoir and a still unidentified intermediate host that subse­quently led to a pandemic, accumulating to date to over 8 million cases and close to 500,000 deaths worldwide.”

The article provides no references for the statement that the SARS virus is “highly contagious” but does contain a lot of fuzzy electron-microscope photographs of tissues and cells whose genetic material the authors determined using PCR tests—the equivalent of finding moats and turrets in a bunch of Lego pieces. The researchers did not isolate and pu­rify the virus but instead used “monkey kidney derived VeroE6 cells” and “human pulmonary cell lines.” In other words, they used cell lines grown in starved and poisoned cultures.

Later in the paper, the authors state that they got different “morphologies” of the virus depending on which cell line they used. In other words, the virus looks one way when grown on monkey kidney cells, but the same virus looks different when grown on lung cancer cells. That is like saying that if you plant some seeds in one garden, you will get toma­toes, but if you plant them in another garden, you will get turnips. What this observation tells us is that what the researchers found comes from the tissue, not the source “virus”; that is why the “viruses” are different.

In their concluding remarks, the authors state, “Our report provides the first in situ cryo-ET analysis of coronaviruses at high preservation levels.” Wait a minute—this study was published on June 23, 2020. You mean they had no analyses of this virus before health officials called for universal lockdowns?

By the way, Stefano Scoglio, PhD, from Italy, has come to the same conclusions that we have. In a talk posted on social media entitled “THE INVENTED PANDEMIC, the lack of VIRUS ISOLATION and the IN­VALID COVID-19 test,” Scoglio says, “At the center of the pandemic project stands the Covid swab test, which is based on the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain Reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat, or more rarely from the broncho-alveolar fluid, of the individual, and then the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample is tested. This is done by using the same RT-PCR methodology used to originally ‘isolate’ the virus from patient zero. Thus, the Covid test depends essentially on the original isolation, or lack thereof, of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, the original PCR isolation of the virus constituting the golden standard necessary to validate any subsequent Covid test. The problems with the original virus isolation, and thus with the ensuing swab test, are many, and they all point to the truth that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has never been isolated and never tested for its pathogenicity.”16

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/the-contagion-fairy-tale/?fbclid=IwAR0WLZCrpbhNnE9JGiwl4ynxh3h1kEvwCILka3nHe8yI3kVkt1g8FQK4Upw#.YEEqnq0N4bU.facebook

________________

THE Problem for Virologists

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. The numerous cell-altering chemicals/antibiotics and foreign animal RNA that is subsequently mixed together with the original unpurified sample (swab or BALF) from a sick individual immediately destroys any claim of purification. The fact that so much is added to the sample destroys the claim of isolation.

If the cell culturing process isn't enough to alter the sample beyond it's original state, the destruction of the natural cell morphology caused by preparing the sample for Transmission Electron Microscope images ensures that this is the case. Highlighted below are some of the steps (fixation and embedding) an already altered cell culture sample goes through in order to be prepared for imaging:

"Studies in virology go hand in hand with the development of microscopy techniques. Among them, electron microscopy (EM) has played a major role due to the small size of virus particles that, with very few exceptions, cannot be visualized by conventional light microscopy [1,2,3,4]. Prior to the invention of the electron microscope in 1931 by the German engineers Ernst Ruska and Max Knoll [5], VIRUSES WERE DETECTED INDIRECTLY e.g., BY MEANS OF THE CYTOPATHIC EFFECT THEY CAUSE IN INFECTED CELLS OR THROUGH CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS. However, the availability of EM enabled us to visualize and identify many infectious agents causing diseases or living “in symbiosis” with other organisms. Thus, during the 20th century EM has been a standard technique for virus diagnosis (reviews by [6,7,8,9])."

"Preparation of cells for EM should follow one major goal, i.e., TO PRESERVE THE ULTRASTRUCTURE IN A STATE THAT IS AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO A SNAPSHOT OF THE LIVING STATES. Quoting Gareth Griffiths, a pioneer in EM [14]: “the cell structure should be preserved exactly as it was in the living state and should be visualized at the resolution limit of the electron microscope”. To achieve this goal, several methods are available and standard recipes have been established. Although they are of great help for routine applications, they must be frequently modified when addressing particular biological questions."

"The standard method to prepare cells for routine EM involves the following steps: FIXATION, EMBEDDING and SECTIONING. These will be extensively described below and are summarized in Figure 1."

2.1. FIXATION OF CELLS

The first and most critical step for the visualization of biological objects by EM is the fixation, because IT DETERMINES HOW CLOSELY THE IMAGE SEEN IN THE MICROSCOPE RESEMBLES THE IN VIVO STRUCTURE. THE AIM IS AVOIDING OR REDUCING ARTIFACTS CAUSED BY EXTRACTION, DENATURATION, STERIC HINDRANCE, CHEMICAL ALTERATION OF EPITOPES (especially important for immunocytochemistry analysis) AND CHANGES IN VOLUME AND SHAPE (critical for the 3D analysis methods described in this review) [14]. Fixation of cells can be carried out by two different methods: chemical fixation (Figure 1A) or cryo-immobilization (i.e., physical-fixation; Figure 1B).

"2.1.1. CHEMICAL FIXATION

Chemical fixation of cells is usually performed with buffered aldehydes. During this step the aldehydes create an inter- and intra-molecular network of covalent interactions (“cross-links”), mostly between amino groups that stabilize the biological sample. This results in the formation of a large 3D network of irreversible cross-links throughout the cytoplasm in tenths of seconds to minutes.

While most laboratories have their own preference, GLUTARALDEHYDE (GA) EITHER ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH PARAFORMALDEHYDE (PFA) ARE THE MOST COMMONLY USED PRIMARY FIXATIVES. However, GA induces a branched meshwork of cross-links that sterically hinder accessibility of antibodies to the antigen. For this reason, formaldehyde, which masks less the antigenicity, is mostly used for immunocytochemistry studies like immunofluorescence [14].

During all the processing steps it is very important that cells do not dry out. This is particularly important before fixation, prior to the initial contact with the fixative, when the cells are still alive. ALTHOUGH THE FIXATION PROCESS KILLS CELLS, CELLS SHOULD DIE “PROPERLY” TO ENSURE THAT, as far as possible, ALL CELL COMPONENTS ARE KEPT SO WELL PRESERVED AS WHEN THEY WERE ALIVE. To this aim, several other factors might be taken into consideration. Hence the purity of the aldehydes is also critical. Therefore it is recommended to use EM grade aldehydes provided by commercial suppliers. Furthermore, the cross-linking ability of these aldehydes is influenced by the time, concentration and temperature [19]. Routine fixation is performed during 15–30 min at room temperature using a buffer with a physiological pH (6.8–7.4) and a concentration of at least 0.1 M (mol/L) [14]. The nature of the buffer plays also a very important role during fixation: sodium cacodylate, sodium phosphate, HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid) and PIPES (piperazine-N,N′-bis(2-ethanesulfonic acid)) are, for instance, among the most widely used."

"UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS NOT A GENERAL RECIPE FOR CHEMICAL FIXATION. THE BEST RESULTS REQUIRE ADAPTATIONS TO INDIVIDUAL EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. Therefore, we recommend consulting an EM specialist or check the literature to help you to choose the optimal conditions (including type and concentration of the aldehyde; type, concentration and pH of the buffer; time and temperature for fixing), tailored for your experiments.

Upon fixation cells are washed with the buffer of choice, in which cells can be stored at 4 °C until further processing. Note that cultured cells can be prepared for EM as monolayers or as pellets (Figure 1A). When the cells are further processed as pellets, they must be scraped off the cell culture dish after fixation if they are not growing in suspension. Alternatively, for cryo-EM cultured cells can be “trypsinized” before fixation (Figure 1B). IT SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND THAT PELLETING OF THE CELLS ALTERS THEIR MORPHOLOGY AND CAN LEAD TO ARTIFACTS (Figure 2)."

"THE MAIN DRAWBACK OF CHEMICAL FIXATION IS THAT IT ALTERS THE STRUCTURE OF THE CELL BY FORMING A NETWORK OF CROSS-LINKED MOLECULES. SUCH A NETWORK IS PRONE TO ARTIFACTS, which is a major challenge for most EM-based studies (for a detailed discussion on this topic see [21]). Nevertheless, chemical fixation has been a mainstay of EM for decades as it PRESERVES THE CELL MORPHOLOGY REASONABLY WELL."

"As already pointed out by Small 34 years ago [24], THE MAJORITY OF ULTRASTRUCTURAL ALTERCATIONS MIGHT OCCUR DURING THE POST-FIXATION PROCESSING OF THE SAMPLES FOR EMBEDDING (described below), RATHER THAN DURING FIXATION. Thus, a tailored protocol must be designed for the highest preservation of cells/tissue of interest, including both optimal fixation and post-fixation conditions."

"2.1.2. CRYO-FIXATION

Freezing techniques represent an alternative to the ARTIFACT-PRONE CHEMICAL FIXATION (reviewed in [25]). The basic principle is to arrest cells by rapid cooling, a process that takes a few milliseconds, resulting in the simultaneous stabilization of all cellular components without altering their environment. The simplest method consists of immersing cells growing on EM grids in liquid ethane or propane, by means of plunge [26,27] and jet freezing [28,29,30,31,32], respectively (Figure 1B). An inherent limitation of these rapid cooling approaches is that samples can only be vitrified to a depth of micrometers from their surface [33,34,35]. This lies in the poor heat conductance of water: high superficial cooling rates rapidly decay within the sample, reaching a low value that causes water crystallization [36,37,38]. ICE CRYSTAL'S ALTER THE CYTOPLASM ULTRASTRUCTURE BY INDUCING PHASE SEGREGATION BETWEEN WATER AND SOLUTES [37,39]. EVEN WORSE, GROWING ICE CRYSTAL'S MIGHT LEAD TO THE FORMATION OF HOLES IN MEMBRANES AND DESTROY ORGANELLES [40]."

"2.2.1. EMBEDDING OF CHEMICALLY FIXED CELLS

After chemical fixation, cells must be further processed in order to analyze them by EM. Due to their low electron scattering power biological samples are inherently of low contrast [56]. Therefore, heavy metals like osmium tetroxide (OsO4) and uranyl acetate (UA), with high affinity to many cellular structures, are used after fixation as contrasting agents in routine EM. Owing to its reactivity with unsaturated acyl chains of membrane lipids OsO4, for instance, facilitates the retention of lipids [57,58], in addition to its role in contrasting structures (especially membranes). Similarly, Silva et al. [59] have shown that UA plays a role in protecting lipids against solvent extraction."

"As stated before, the ultrastructural preservation of the cells is not only influenced by the method of fixation, but also by the subsequent processing steps (dehydration, infiltration and resin polymerization). AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE DENATURING EFFECTS OF THESE PROCESSING STEPS THE STRUCTURES ARE RARELY PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT AS THEY APPEAR IN VIVO."

https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/7/12/2940/htm

REFER HERE IF LINKS ARE NOT COMPLETE : https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRSC6Lu3VeC8zxHgt9ey0BD_8vncuW1YebFN25W-JDRrCpwohnmFTHNyniiZZ04jDwcoQ1Iqz8IXyNN/pub

_________

see what im talking about yet

THE CASE AGAINST CELL CULTURES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CELL LINE MISIDENTIFICATION:

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

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158074436313576&id=502548575

CELL CULTURE MEDIA:

The chosen cell is contained within cell culture media and there are many types that they choose from including both natural and artificial varieties. The actual composition and make-up of these media is unknown in most cases and can vary batch-to-batch but, like the VTM, they typically contain a salt solution, antibiotics, and fetal bovine serum as well as added amino acids, glucose, vitamins, and nutrients. The compounds that make up these media individually have been shown to be detrimental to cells and the combined effects are relatively unknown and understudied.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158073300108576&id=502548575

A quick look at a few of the compounds making up VTM and Cell Culture Media show how they can impact the results of the cell culture and why they should not be used.

ANTIBIOTICS:

Antibiotics are regularly used in cell cultures in order to prevent bacterial contamination. However, it is well known that they are toxic to cells and their use impairs cell growth and differentiation. They have an effect on the metabolism of cultured cells, cell proliferation, differentiation and gene expression. They can also attack non-bacterial structures within the cell.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158069259478576&id=502548575

FETAL BOVINE SERUM:

Fetal bovine serum is derived from the blood of the unborn fetus of slaughtered pregnant cows. It's use is questionable not only on a moral ground as the fetus is normally alive as the blood is drained from its heart but also due to the fact that the RNA from the serum is nearly impossible to separate in the cell culture and can influence the results. It has also been shown to affect the genotypic and phenotypic response. The batches vary in composition and many of the components are unknown.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158071825078576&id=502548575

Once the cell and the cell culture media are chosen, the supernatant from the patient sample is added to the cell culture. Media/Antibiotics are added and changed throughout this process. An example from the Zhou study, one of the original "SARS-COV-2" papers:

"Cultured cell monolayers were maintained IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MEDIUM. The PCR-positive BALF sample from ICU-06 patient was spun at 8,000g for 15 min, filtered and DILUTED 1:2 WITH DMEM SUPPLEMENTED WITH 16 μg ml−1 TRYPSIN BEFORE IT WAS ADDED TO THE CELLS. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, the inoculum was removed and REPLACED WITH FRESH CULTURE MEDIUM CONTAINING ANTIBIOTICS (see below) AND 16 μg ml−1 TRYPSIN. The cells were incubated at 37 °C and OBSERVED DAILY FOR CYTOPATHOGENIC EFFECTS."

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

As can be seen from the above example, after the supernatant and the media are added, the cell culture is incubated and observed daily for what is called cytopathic or cytopathogenic effects.

THE CYTOPATIC EFFECT:

Cytopathic Effects are the holy grail of the cell culture experiment. These are structural changes to the host cell said to be caused by an invading "virus." As "viruses" are unable to be seen without the use of an Electron Microscope, they look for this effect as INDIRECT evidence that a "virus" is present in the cell culture. If they observe CPE, they ASSUME a "virus" is present as this effect is supposedly specific to "viruses." However, this is not the case at all as there are many other factors which can cause the very same effect such as: bacteria, parasites, amoebas, and chemical contaminants such as antibiotics and antifungals.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158071286553576&id=502548575

It's clear to see that if CPE, the end result of a cell culture experiment used as proof of a "virus," can be caused by other organisms and chemicals, CPE is not specific to "viruses." Antibiotics and antifungals are pretty much a given to be in cell cultures at this point and alone are enough to cause CPE. However, It is also well known that these various other factors (bacteria, parasites, amoebas) are most likely in the culture as well.

CONTAMINATION:

Cell culture contamination is not the exception but the norm. They try to mitigate and control the effects of contamination yet admit there is no way that they can eliminate it. Contamination can come in many forms such as bacteria like mycoplasmas, other "viruses," parasites, yeast, fungus, etc.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158069138733576&id=502548575

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158070133903576&id=502548575

Contamination can also come from the environment in various ways such as plastic ware chemicals leaching into the cell culture from petri dishes, organic/inorganic compounds in the water used invading the culture, and even effects from the types of lights used altering the cells. There are other factors such as temperature, atmospheric conditions, and pH levels to consider.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158073850273576&id=502548575

REPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS:

Taking into consideration the numerous sources of contamination, the huge problem of misidentification of cell lines, the various chemicals/antibiotics/serum/animal cells etc. used in the cultures and the toxic, cell-altering effects they have, is it any wonder why there is a reproducibility crisis is science, especially regarding cell cultures? Experiments are rarely able to be reproduced which leads to the nearly 500,000 "variants" we are currently in the midst of seeing with a new one seemingly popping up every day.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158069623598576&id=502548575

One other important factor to consider with cell cultures is their inability to recreate the environment that cells normally function in vivo (within the living organism). None of the added chemicals/antibiotics/serums/nutrients would be added to or come into contact with the cells in their natural environment as they do in culture experiments. 2D cell cultures are unable to provide the extracellular microenvironment necessary for the cell to thrive as it normally would. They have tried to combat this problem with 3D cell cultures but they have their own issues as well.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158067100248576&id=502548575

Once the supposed "viral" CPE is observed in the toxic cell culture, the unpurified supernatant is once again collected for EM imaging, genome sequencing, and animal testing. It should be clear from the various reasons listed above why this is not adequate proof of any "virus."

1. Without proper purification/isolation, there is absolutely no way to tell that the particle they pick out to be the representation of their "novel virus" in the EM image actually is a "virus" at all.

2. Without purification and due to the numerous toxic ingredients added to the original sample, there is no way to confirm that the RNA/DNA used for the genome actually comes from one unaltered source.

3. Without purification/isolation, there is no way to definitively say that there was a "virus" contained within the cell culture goo which is unnaturally shoved intranasally down the noses of test animals. If the animals do get sick, it could be due to the antibiotics, the FBS, the media, the nutrients, the contaminants, the stress of the experiments, or a combination of any of these factors.

It should be obvious that the end result of a cell culture experiment in no way reflects what was originally taken from the patient sample. The results in no way reflect reality. Cell cultures are nothing more than a recipe to create cell death which is blamed on invisible "viruses" never proven to exist.

For this, we locked down, quarantined, social-distanced, shut down economies and small businesses, shunned the elderly, mask-upped, and vaccinated with rushed experimental gene therapies.

All based on "scientific" fraud.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTughyulJh5H2D5S5YxR4_DCXKI_3Yc-eTKWVaoK16z-3R5SWbW8DCoxhAn5YkeN_fEQzK1XHO0QzgX/pub

______________

Cell line misidentification is a huge problem in cell cultures.

_______________________

“Evidence suggests that up to one-third of tumor cell lines being used in scientific research are affected by inter- or intra species cross-contamination or have been wrongly identified, THEREBY RENDERING MANY OF THE CONCLUSIONS DOUBTFUL IF NOT COMPLETELY INVALID.” — Lancet Oncology, vol. 2, July 2001, p. 393

Cell line misidentification is a huge problem in cell cultures. It has been known for over half a century and instead of the problem getting better, it has only become worse over time. This has led to many false and erroneous papers being published and their findings built upon by other researchers which has created a spiraling problem that has yet to be resolved. The two articles presented below highlight this troublesome issue and provide ample evidence for why all cell culture studies should be questioned.

"Cell lines are used extensively in research and drug development as models of normal and cancer tissues. However, A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF CELL LINES IS MISLABELED OR REPLACED BY CELLS DERIVED FROM A DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL, TISSUE OR SPECIES. The scientific community has failed to tackle this problem and CONSISTENTLY THOUSANDS OF MISLEADING AND POTENTIALLY ERRONEOUS PAPERS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED USING CELL LINES THAT ARE INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc2852

"WHILE PROBLEMS WITH CELL LINE MISIDENTIFICATION HAVE BEEN KNOWN FOR DECADES, AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PUBLISHED PAPERS REMAINS IN CIRCULATION REPORTING ON THE WRONG CELLS WITHOUT WARNING OR CORRECTION. Here we attempt to make a conservative estimate of this ‘contaminated’ literature. WE FOUND 32,755 ARTICLES REPORTING ON RESEARCH WITH MISIDENTIFIED CELLS, IN TURN CITED BY AN ESTIMATED HALF A MILLION OTHER PAPERS. The contamination of the literature IS NOT DECREASING OVER TIME and is anything but restricted to countries in the periphery of global science. The decades-old and often contentious attempts to stop misidentification of cell lines have proven to be insufficient."

"The misidentification of cell lines is a stubborn problem in the biomedical sciences, CONTRIBUTING TO THE GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT ERRORS, FALSE CONCLUSIONS AND IRREPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS [1, 2]. As a result of mislabelled samples, cross-contaminations, or inadequate protocols, some research papers report results for lung cancer cells that turn out to be liver carcinoma, OR HUMAN CELL LINES THAT TURN OUT TO BE RAT [3, 4]. In some cases, these errors may only marginally affect results; in others THEY RENDER RESULTS MEANINGLESS [4]."

"Although no exact numbers are known, THE EXTENT OF CELL LINE MISIDENTIFICATION IS ESTIMATED BETWEEN ONE FIFTH AND ONE THIRD OF ALL CELL LINES [4, 14]. (Although currently only 488 or 0.6% of over 80,000 known cell lines have been reported as misidentified, most cell lines are used infrequently [15].) In addition, MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES KEEP BEING USED UNDER THEIR FALSE IDENTITIES LONG AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN UNMASKED [16], WHILE OTHER RESEARCHERS CONTINUE TO BUILD ON THEIR RESULTS. Considering the biomedical nature of research conducted on these cell lines, CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE FINDINGS ARE POTENTIALLY SEVERE and costly [17], with grants, patents and even drug trials based on misidentified cells [18]."

"Before any action can be taken, it is essential that we get a sense of the size and nature of the problem of contaminated literature. This raises several questions. First, HOW MANY RESEARCH ARTICLES HAVE BEEN BASED ON MISIDENTIFIED OR CONTAMINATED CELL LINES? HOW WIDE IS THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE? Second, what can we say about origins and trends in the contaminated literature? Is the problem getting better, or restricted to peripheral regions of the world’s research, where perhaps protocols are less strict? Third, what could be appropriate ways to deal with the contaminated literature?"

"Using complementary search strategies (see methods), WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY 32,755 ARTICLES (on August 4th, 2017) BASED ON CELL LINES THAT ARE CURRENTLY KNOWN TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE CELL LINES REPORTED IN THESE PUBLICATIONS. As we only searched for cell lines known to be misidentified, THIS CONSTITUTES A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF THE SCALE OF CONTAMINATION IN THE PRIMARY LITERATURE."

"In addition, RESEARCH BASED ON MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES HAS A WIDE IMPACT ON THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, AS IT APPEARS THAT THESE RESEARCH PAPERS ARE COMPARATIVELY HIGHLY CITED. WoS does not allow for precise total numbers, but we can give indications of this ‘secondary contamination’ of the literature. Analysing citations to primary contaminated articles, WE FOUND 46 PAPERS WITH MORE THAN A THOUSAND CITATIONS AND OVER 2600 CONTAMINATED ARTICLES WITH OVER A HUNDRED CITATIONS. Furthermore, OVER 92% OF THE CONTAMINATED PAPERS ARE CITED AT LEAST ONCE, which is more than average for biomedical literature [34]. In total, we can CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATE THE CITATIONS TO THE PRIMARY CONTAMINATED PRIMARY LITERATURE AT OVER 500,000, excluding self-citations, thereby leaving traces in a substantial share of the biomedical literature. Even though it is clear that articles may receive citations for many reasons, including negative or even ritual citations, and hence not all citing articles contain (critical) errors, THE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH POTENTIALLY BUILDING ON FALSE GROUNDS REMAINS WORRISOME."

"One might wonder whether the contamination of the research literature is mainly a problem of the past, given that the FIRST CONCERNS ABOUT MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES WERE EXPRESSED HALF A CENTURY AGO [9, 10] and that numerous initiatives have tried to alleviate the problem since.

Based on the set of 32,755 records of primary contaminated literature, we analysed the publication dates of the articles. THE MAJORITY OF THE ARTICLES, 57%, WERE WRITTEN SINCE 2000 AND THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES USING MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES IS STILL GROWING (see Fig 2). Clearly, the problem is definitely not one of the past, but is very relevant to contemporary science, with 58 new articles based on contaminated literature appearing even as recently as February 2017."

"Fig 2 indicates three moments in history when cell line contamination became evident. First, through the work of Stanley Gartler it became possible to detect intraspecies cell contamination, AFTER WHICH SEVERAL OF SUCH CONTAMINATIONS INVOLVING HeLa CELLS WERE REPORTED IN NATURE IN 1968 [9, 10]. Second, cell culture contamination was put on the global research agenda by the work of Walter Nelson-Rees et al. in the 1970s [7, 8], CULMINATING IN A LIST OF CONTAMINATED CELL CULTURES IN SCIENCE IN 1981 THAT DEMONSTRATED LARGE-SCALE CONTAMINATION OF CELL CULTURES BY HeLa CELLS [44]. From this point on, it could be expected that most scientists working in those areas of research frequently employing cell cultures, were aware of the potential issues with their research material. HOWEVER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESEARCH PAPERS BASED ON MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES WAS PUBLISHED AFTER THIS POINT IN TIME. Even after the introduction of STR in 2001 [45], THE ANNUAL NUMBER DOES NOT DECREASE."

"Similar to the primary literature, the number of articles in the secondary literature is also still growing. IN 2016, OVER 40,000 PAPERS WERE PUBLISHED THAT REFERRED TO PRIMARY CONTAMINATED LITERATURE. In addition, from the information in the Supplementary Material (S2 File), we conclude that THE MAJORITY OF MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES CONTINUE TO CONTAMINATE THE SECONDARY LITERATURE IN 2017."

"For example, several recent publications indicate levels of CELL LINE CONTAMINATION FOR CHINA BETWEEN 25% [13] AND 46% [46] AND DEMONSTRATE THAT OF ALL ‘NEW’ CELL LINES DEVELOPED IN CHINA 85% ACTUALLY TURNED OUT TO BE HeLa CELLS [13].

However, THE MAJORITY OF THE ARTICLES USING MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES ORIGINATE FROM COUNTRIES HOLDING WELL-ESTABLISHED RESEARCH TRADITIONS (e.g. US, Japan, Germany). Relative to their share of total research output, authors from these countries OFTEN PERFORM RESEARCH ON MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES. In fact, mainly due to their enormous share of total literature on cell lines, OVER 36% OF ALL CONTAMINATED PRIMARY LITERATURE STEMS FROM THE US."

"Our results seem to present worrying problems for the biomedical sciences. ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE OF MISIDENTIFIED CELL LINES HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN, ITS EFFECT ON THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE PROPERLY TREATED [47, 48]."

"Despite measures to authenticate new and existing cell lines [27], RESEARCH BASED ON THE WRONG CELLS IS STILL PRESENT IN THE LITERATURE AND IN FACT CONTINUES TO BE PUBLISHED."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186281

It is clear that cell line misidentification is a problem that is not going away and has grown out of control over time. Taken into consideration with the evidence of the vast problem of cell line contamination from biological, chemical, and environmental factors, the toxic effects of the antibiotics/fetal bovine serum/media used, the lack of proper replication of the in vivo environment, and the inability to reproduce results, it is a wonder why any cell culture study should be considered valid.

It is fraud built upon fraud.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTrDRck0mqyo0X3wOVdLtubFXZYW200qnwo7AUZ0xpAvbAVG2ErTX1Y-TmOXhwKC3Go7ygsyiSOmMDC/pub

The Slippery Slope of Reference Genomics:

The genome for "SARS-COV-2" was created using multiple reference genomes. One of them was RaTG13, a bat "coronavirus:"

"Similarity plot based on the full-length genome sequence of 2019-nCoV WIV04. Full-length genome sequences of SARS-CoV BJ01, bat SARSr-CoV WIV1, BAT CORONAVIRUS RaTG13 and ZC45 were USED AS REFERENCE SEQUENCES."

"We then found that a short region of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) FROM A BAT CORONAVIRUS (BatCoV RaTG13)—which was previously detected in Rhinolophus affinis from Yunnan province—SHOWED HIGH SEQUENCE IDENTITY TO 2019-nCoV. We carried out full-length sequencing on this RNA sample (GISAID accession number EPI_ISL_402131). SIMPLOT ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT 2019-nCoV WAS HIGHLY SIMILAR THROUGHOUT THE GENOME TO RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), WITH AN OVERALL GENOME SEQUENCE IDENTITY OF 96.2%."

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

What is RaTG13?

"Bat coronavirus RaTG13 is a SARS-like betacoronavirus that infects the horseshoe bat Rhinolophus affinis.[2][3] It was discovered in 2013 in bat droppings from a mining cave near the town of Tongguan in Mojiang county in Yunnan, China. AS OF 2020, IT IS THE CLOSEST KNOWN RELATIVE OF SARS-CoV-2, THE VIRUS THAT CAUSES COVID-19.[4][5]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaTG13

This bat "Coronavirus" is the closet known relative of "SARS-COV-2." But what happens if it turns out that RatG13 doesn't exist? What if it is a highly faulty sequenced genome? What does that mean for "SARS-COV-2," a "virus" which is its closest relative and which used it as a reference genome?

"Scientists claim SERIOUS DATA DISCREPANCIES IN RaTG13 sequence

"A new preprint* published in September 2020 by molecular biologists at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and the Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi discusses the current issues with the bat coronavirus (CoV) strain that is often considered to have very close homology with the above-mentioned virus, CONCLUDING THAT THERE ARE INADEQUATE GROUNDS TO CONSIDER IT TO BE THE ANCESTRAL POOL OF SARS-CoV-2."

"Many scientists mention the genome sequence of this bat CoVs, RaTG13, as being part of the ancestral descent of the current virus. A recent paper in the journal Nature also mentions its 96.2% homology with SARS-CoV-2, CONSIDERING IT TO BE A FOSSIL RECORD OF A STRAIN WHOSE CURRENT EXISTENCE IS DOUBTFUL, BUT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL POOL FROM WHICH THE CURRENT VIRUS DEVELOPED."

"The scientists assembled the viral genome from scratch, performed a metagenomic analysis, and looked at data quality. THEY CONCLUDED THAT THE RaTG13 GENOME HAD SERIOUS ISSUES AND ALL DATA RELATED TO IT REQUIRED A FULL REVIEW."

"De novo RaTG13 Assembly NOT POSSIBLE

The researchers found that using the available data, THEY WERE UNABLE TO DETECT ANY CONTIGUOUS SEQUENCES LARGER THAN 17 kb, using several different settings. Several matching sequences were found, BUT NONE OVER A FIFTH OF THE LENGTH OF THE REPORTED SEQUENCE. A gap spanning 111 positions was found, AND IT IS UNCLEAR ON WHAT BASIS THIS WAS FILLED IN THE PUBLISHED SEQUENCE.

CONTAMINATION LIKELY

The researchers also UNCOVERED PROOF THAT DNA CONTAMINATION IS LIKELY TO HAVE OCCURRED. For instance, the largest contig contains genetic material with 98% similarity to the full-length mitochondrial sequence of the Chinese rufous horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus sinicus), AN UNLIKELY EVENT SINCE A COMPLETE ASSEMBLY OF SUCH A SEQUENCE IS TYPICALLY INTERRUPTED BY STOP CODONS.

Secondly, NON-ADAPTER-RELATED REPETITIVE SEQUENCES WERE FOUND IN MOST READS, often at the same end of the read, comprising one G-quadruplex sequence and its reverse complement. THIS IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN ON THE SAME END OF AN RNA SAMPLE SINCE ONLY ONE STRAND IS DOMINANT. The researchers say MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE EXPERIMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT IS CRUCIAL TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GROSS RNA SAMPLES CONTAMINATION BY DNA.

POOR DATA QUALITY

The researchers also calculated that the average coverage is 9.73, INDICATING A LOW VALUE. This may be why ONLY PARTIAL SEGMENTS OF THE RaTG13 SEQUENCE ARE ASSEMBLED. The coverage is only 2 or less for about 3,000 bases, WHICH COULD MARKEDLY IMPAIR THE ACCURACY. They draw attention to multiple ambiguous bases in the first end that could PREVENT DE NOVO ASSEMBLY, AND TO MANY UNRELIABLE SECOND END READS AS WELL."

"EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURAL CONCERNS

THE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE DIFFERENCES IN THE BACTERIAL CONTENT OF THE TWO REFERENCED DATASETS ARE SURPRISING, say the researchers, SINCE BOTH PURPORT TO BE FROM SIMILAR SITES, fecal and oral samples. One has only 0.65% bacteria, and ~68% Eukaryota, with the rest being unidentified. The other is ~91% bacteria and ~4% Eukaryota. THIS CONCERN HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE.

Again, 0.1% of the first dataset IS SIMILAR TO PLANT GENOMES LIKE RICE AND MAIZE, WHICH IS UNEXPECTED FROM BAT SAMPLES from creatures like the intermediate horseshoe bat Rhinolophus affinis. The researchers attribute this to CONTAMINATION BY POSSIBLE INDEX HOPPING BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME PLATFORM HAS BEEN USED TO SEQUENCE MAIZE EARLIER. Multiplex sequencing of maize and the CoV genome of interest COULD LEAD TO SUCH CONTAMINATION.

Again, THE DATASET ALSO CONTAINS MATERIAL IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE MALAYAN PANGOLINS Manis javanica, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ORDER. This again could be DUE TO INDEX HOPPING OF SOME FRAGMENTS for the same reason. THIS COULD HAVE MISDIRECTED THE DISCUSSION ON THE ORIGIN OF THE NOVEL CoV, as some have reported that pangolin CoV genomic sequences also have close homology with that of the former.

Thus, the inference could also be that CONTAMINATION ACCOUNTS FOR THE PRESENCE OF VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE RaTG13 IN THE DATASET, accounting for 0.0008% of the total."

IMPLICATIONS

While most work on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 has focused on the human CoV sequence, the current study shows that EQUAL IMPORTANCE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE OTHER HALF OF THE EQUATION, NAMELY, RaTG13, in order to justify giving it a role in the narrative. Secondly, discussions may instead BE WITHHELD, WHILE THE PRECISE DETAILS OF THE METHODS USED TO GENERATE THE RaTG13 ARE AWAITED. And thirdly, THIS GENOME SHOULD NOT BE USED IN FURTHER STUDIES UNTIL ITS SCIENTIFIC RELIABILITY IS ESTABLISHED IN ENTIRETY, BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS WITH ACCESS TO THE FULL DATASETS AND METHODS USED FOR ITS GENERATION."

https://www.news-medical.net/.../Scientists-claim-serious...

Some very heavy IMPLICATIONS about the numerous errors in RaTG13 which was used in the creation of the "SARS-COV-2" genome.

Why is it important that the REFERENCE GENOME be accurate?

"Perhaps one of the biggest drawbacks IS THE NEED FOR A REFERENCE GENOME FOR COMPARISON WITH YOUR SEQUENCE. If you don’t have one of these to compare your results to, YOU HAVE NO REAL WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT IS NORMAL AND WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT YOUR SAMPLE. Good luck identifying an insertion mutation without an unaltered genome to compare to! While de novo sequencing for when a reference is not available is possible, IT CAN LEAD TO MORE ERRORS SINCE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE TO."

https://bitesizebio.com/.../good-tbad-expensive-whole.../

"Additionally, with the current suite of PRIMARILY SEQUENCE SIMILARITY-BASED PATHOGENIC IDENTIFICATION TOOLS, the ability to detect novel pathogens is WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON HIGH-QUALITY REFERENCE DATABASES (22). There is a TREND TOWARD REQUIRING A COMPLETE GENOME SEQUENCE WHEN A DESCRIPTION OF A NOVEL VIRUS IS BEING PUBLISHED, and we agree that this is a good goal"

https://mbio.asm.org/content/5/3/e01360-14

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTrDRck0mqyo0X3wOVdLtubFXZYW200qnwo7AUZ0xpAvbAVG2ErTX1Y-TmOXhwKC3Go7ygsyiSOmMDC/pub

If the reference genome is not accurate, there is no way the genome created by using it is accurate as well.

Related post on Reference Genomes:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157670801783576&id=502548575

______________

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)

Isolation: The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness.

– Oxford English Dictionary

The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:

the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical spike or other proteins;

the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;

“variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;

it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19.

In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. Without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifuges i.e. the specimen. This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages1 and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.

These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues.2 (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.)3

1 Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli Akhwale et al, PLOS One, Published: April 25, 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734 — accessed 2/15/21

2 “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration,” Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October 2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full — accessed 2/15/21

3 “The Role of Extraellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses,” Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020 May

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fraud.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fraud.

From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:

There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.

Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?

Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to stop this terrible fraud that humanity is confronting. For, as we now know, if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing and putting the whole world into prison?

Finally, if pathogenic viruses don’t exist, then what is going into those injectable devices erroneously called “vaccines,” and what is their purpose? This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.

We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.

Sally Fallon Morell, MA

Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD

https://drtomcowan.com/sovi

_________

https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

____________

University of Toronto, McMaster University, Sunnybrook HSC & Mount Sinai Hospital have no record of “COVID-19 virus” isolation

I (CM) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to various Canadian institutions seeking records that describe the actual isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus from any sample taken from a diseased patient.

The reason for these requests is that without this isolation step having been performed (followed by controlled experiments and other necessary steps), there is no way to claim scientifically that the alleged “novel coronavirus” blamed for widespread death/disease/lockdown measures actually exists.

Without this step having been performed, and followed by the necessary controlled experiments, and independently replicated, all claims of this alleged virus are nothing but wild, unscientific, fraud-based speculation backed only by fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses.....

click here for the rest of this article:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/university-of-toronto-sunnybrook-hsc-have-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/?fbclid=IwAR2naCQA2f3bdINPXVzj0g1dVodFHpgHRhxCDSClavU9Z0n2MNwjNQBZFrA

____________

Isolation versus Purification

David Crowe

May 21, 2020

Version 1

I have been saying since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic panic that the virus has not been purified, and therefore probably does not exist. But people are continually pointing me to papers that claim isolation of the virus.

There is a saying regarding politicians, that you can tell if a politician is lying if their lips are moving. With virologists you can tell when they are lying when they use the word “isolation”.

Virologists must know that the common definition of isolation and purification are virtually identical. For example, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

Isolation • “The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness”.

Purification • “Freeing from dirt or defilement; cleansing; separation of dross, dregs, refuse, or other debasing or deteriorating matter, so as to obtain the substance in a pure condition”.

One can argue about subtleties, but if you took some ore and isolated gold, it would be the same as purifying gold. But with viruses, virologists have completely debased the word “isolation” while rarely using the word “purification”.

What is COVID-19 Isolation?

In a paper using transgenic (genetically modified) mice:

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.

Isolation was defined as “cytopathic effects” (i.e. some cells in the cell culture died).

The authors claimed to fulfil Koch’s postulates but in the absence of virus purification, this is a bald faced lie.

Bao L et al. The Pathogenicity of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in hACE2 Transgenic Mice. bioRxiv. 2020 Feb 7.

In a paper claiming isolation of COVID-19 virus from a patient in Korea:

Impure materials were obtained (nose and throat swabs), antibiotics were added, and then the material was cultured in vero cells with various growth stimulating substances.

Isolation was defined as “cytopathic effects” (i.e. some cells in the cell culture died).

They noted that the same RNA was obtained at the end of the process that they had put in at the beginning, but in greater quantity. However, because RT-qPCR is not reliably quantitative, this is not a supportable statement, and cannot be used as proof that a virus was replicating.

Kim JM et al. Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2020 Feb; 11(1): 3-7.

What is Purification?

Perhaps a psychologist could explain why virologists feel free to abuse the word “isolation” so freely, but are scared to death of even writing the word “purification”

Purification clearly means separating the virus from all other organic materials. Logically, this requires the following steps:

Culturing materials 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.

https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/IsolationVersusPurification.php

____________

___________

The University of Otago has responded to the Official Information Act. The first sentence of their request is as follows:

"I can confirm that the University holds no records....."

https://thevirushoax.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/VIRUS/pages/44630017/University+of+Otago+s+Fake+Isolation+Process

_____________

THE CASE AGAINST CELL CULTURES:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTughyulJh5H2D5S5YxR4_DCXKI_3Yc-eTKWVaoK16z-3R5SWbW8DCoxhAn5YkeN_fEQzK1XHO0QzgX/pub

Cell line misidentification is a huge problem in cell cultures.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTrDRck0mqyo0X3wOVdLtubFXZYW200qnwo7AUZ0xpAvbAVG2ErTX1Y-TmOXhwKC3Go7ygsyiSOmMDC/pub

"Cell culture RELIES ON THE ASSUMPTION that the behavior of cells in vitro is fundamentally similar to their behavior as part of a tissue within an organ of a multicellular organism."

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQzmhs4R7NkbxToUR1GyeLdF5iLZhgDkYkooiNFrg4HzielJu231losXzaWlPAxZFGmX-GJRnujhH0x/pub

VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIA:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRIV5oXy0ZIFvSry6gJ09maJTqz1dJz_HTtzlZNfJYPB3k7vvrPrM2q3hT5F8r_zfv27rxqdTU2CiwZ/pub

The Case against Rapid Mass Testing for "Coronavirus:"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRngCUUfZM6jouC6bdvDxOCbzVYRrH6FPfJpcIMCe8ooR5Llkq5dmsfCTd1OMM5HGfSucGjBJdgnrOE/pub

Smart Mask

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRkAw-iF0VPtdUZIO5XC1hGDcEhQ6ZJ5ON_XGYLG83no2szAgoyKvnaNN0h0MZfvZGuYSk872s_anXe/pub

Mike Stone Mask Links

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSis6-DrgWK2AMBN1w5iHR3_iSj6a0OkzoSx8eczHs5LCUfG7SccIft35nsxQz7zdXLjfmEq6XQt_P0/pub

SUB-CULTURING and CELL CULTURE ADAPTATIONS:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSmTM9raiDxVAp64o3yTdILEtWCuwmrhG7nb25YQbJKtuh2d2P9PMKOUD7Fv72Po-Ev3CJgKikiKEEr/pub

"SARS-COV-2" variants and mutations

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSwugZCGN1YXfSp9uA6107GK7QEB4qRUWI1Dd4HK1ZeW0GfbKfxxzdXfmo4D8eRXIWTIVa3HGORqL1m/pub

The Human Genome Is FULL OF VIRUSES

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSPp3ZH2S_160J1HtvqStAMh19fuz2Me7AZacfn8RvpzIYxVPw_WL_4HdL_4xNYB2p9Y9BKu_opEJiU/pub

"New evidence has emerged from China indicating that the LARGE MAJORITY OF CORONAVIRUS INFECTIONS DO NOT RESULT IN SYMPTOMS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQsfZHhWzue-MbcwpvElzdvotgUR1RX3Y1cb2HCwgkzP-dR5FPwdh0VNfhX2TisPj-YF8klC2_keK3s/pub

The Slippery Slope of Reference Genomics

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQQTtEitoPXzw4X_sKVBsGe2JRRwntgcRLFW1HOuPINUTbZzJiWACW226A6oUJE8s5f2HRwhxj7bkaq/pub

Flu cases are being relabeled as "COVlD-19,"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSc_t_XbcnPhPCsMtiUvzhZIS7iaVIe9qz6VX7nAIL-_iMvhtMgNzoYvoqEavzDDpZaQNmKQyN_6e_3/pub

Two undeniable facts about "SARS-COV-2" (and any other "virus" for that matter):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTSc_Ciw5cB2quctJcKN4YRnk1oV74t-5nqTNBXHvRu5pVxHHtHpxngE0nWIbnCG6_ddCyEnTvOdePn/pub

THE HUMAN VIROME:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSpo40_wld8n1ZuVm5qUs_6yV4gQIVo9tHyzG3N3965BUnvXsIiKfmyWPEWOvYjCPQwxIhNDHknFWDL/pub

A huge problem for Virologists

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRSC6Lu3VeC8zxHgt9ey0BD_8vncuW1YebFN25W-JDRrCpwohnmFTHNyniiZZ04jDwcoQ1Iqz8IXyNN/pub

MISINTERPRETING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE IMAGES:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRtNF-g18mgvOL45buaMhHJp-hfTvGLYf7SZe32m69zmnauOfr7hsr_hKUuo8642z_vf-b20RvStYaJ/pub

Let's look at all the ways that they say you CAN NOT get "SARS-COV-2:"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSFdOlk-pK22NaceNxFRERTyvLKlTHQSfSNqHVCT_1ihLfjpGpm5nOpUZZEoTRy-RFytJV1zrLUpYH5/pub

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

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTx9BIQAwWZm7gi6v1_w9T_tWyknOEuRx8kCJVJ7tN_dcYUc8EwsF92AShh3HwmDOxLDVDd417jWjzO/pub

The vaccines have 95% efficacy...or 19%?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTNZmjZFzuFJAhxyWi3EyECQGJVXEKNk_Im3DdeQOqksyABV_nNHqj3wQYJGkG1xDAvc6eFYMP8OmV6/pub

ANOSMIA: The loss of taste and smell

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSYtYBjJGY1eq0Vs_XHbnwEAy3guKLUQvJg21Qey9_lQcTlGsVVUnWmJC6ONgJ_cKfwZ7DO3IwNurwa/pub

ENDERS 1954 MEASLES PAPER:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS-ffMU9VlK0UBmWENeSrmEAFIu732T5G0GGFTb5swNWmYr8BC7ODOTbmkuDvzg6HnSvYA2DXjKO-_6/pub

This is the evidence for Hepatitis E (HEV) from 1983

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRBYVrxqCRZIPbincQyQYYHKVRA8dHoOdR6bs2KvAhyVsiN1cRQcRNeVKzezW0NlLQFbM2DTtwRNkqD/pub

Purification of a "virus" is impossible

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTjyUqE8tA2J7hdxTrmdgsa5o8EOR2DjAI08i52V6X_gAyHA6vMNas3dRwgm10FmYM12JKWeTrmyXUs/pub

A BRIEF OVERVIEW ON POLIO:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQyfgROsQRAug4hL_5Ffjlx6HzgGcGUZa2_HFF8atnYr0jmEfFBKoBPbVgVHN8jk4kVDyq1h4-d4OxH/pub

D.A TYRRELL 1965 "CORONAVIRUS" DISCOVERY:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTCTJaZOpHk-OtFNIspUMha6AsXQVVSoEggOkpoCcFOmhyetd9JNUay4L_OWQR6QyeP7vGhE1L-Q7SN/pub

_______ THE ABOVE LINKS FOUND HERE__________

THANKS TO: MIKE STONE - DEMI GOD OF WHAT IS NOT FALSE

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQtVav4dmSOSafCDWBdelyXQRx8Y_ACCSz3rqtYw2b5Cs9aEWSxFc70I3b5JmWHEUS8cUrJZxFiXO1x/pub?fbclid=IwAR0AbeKL2e_iMNPhLXwd7Rc2oPknq3IvthSlsWao0n8nSYJHv9ca1k5okBo

_______

THIS LINK IS AN INTERNAL LIBRARY INSIDE A LIBRAY INSIDE A LIBRARY

THANKS TO: JOHN B - DEMI GOD OF WHAT IS NOT FALSE

https://steemit.com/health/@johnblaid/research-summary-and-debunk-regarding-the-existence-of-sars-cov-2-and-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR2UWWlk-j28trSWbk7E8UpvmrV-sHCUBCPcNpGnDpdY5aROfIZeAeazwnI

Research summary and debunk regarding the existence of "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19"

john B

In this article I present information that refutes the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 "virus" but it also include information that challenge all alleged "viruses". I don't expect people to go through it all because this has taken me many months to research. I will continue to update this article as my research continues so I would recommend people to bookmark it.

Note 1: I am not saying that nobody has died or fallen ill, what I am saying is that the CAUSE is NOT the "virus".

Note 2: I am fully aware of articles claiming isolation but none of those articles have done an isolation according to the definition(the separation from everything else). The problems of those claims are being discussed more in detail in the research material below by various doctors, scientists and virologists.

"Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)"

https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

"COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless"

Screenshot_129.png

“No one has died from the coronavirus” (makes sense of they dont have proof of it, no one could die from it... )

https://off-guardian.org /2020/07/02/no-one-has-died-from-the-coronavirus-president-of-the-bulgarian-pathology-association/

"COVID19 – Evidence Of Global Fraud"

https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

"Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2"

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/phantom-virus-in-search-of-sars-cov-2/

Michael Laue, representative of the German Robert Koch Institute.

Screenshot_122.png

"Ten Fatal Errors: Scientists Attack Paper That Established Global PCR Driven Lockdown"

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/03/ten-fatal-errors-scientists-attack-paper-that-established-global-pcr-driven-lockdown/

"The Scam Has Been Confirmed: PCR Does Not Detect SARS-CoV-2"

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2

"Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020"

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

"Addendum: Peer reviewed literature and preprints covering wet-lab experiments, in silico analysis of the Corman Drosten protocol-design, meta-data analysis on EuroSurveillance.org and further discussion"

https://cormandrostenreview.com/addendum/

"The Virus Misconception Part 1 - Measles as an example" - by Dr Stefan Lanka

https://truthseeker.se/the-virus-misconception-part-1-measles-as-an-example-by-dr-stefan-lanka/

"The Virus Misconception Part 2 - The beginning and end of the corona crisis" - by Dr Stefan Lanka

https://truthseeker.se/the-virus-misconception-part-2-the-beginning-and-end-of-the-corona-crisis-by-dr-stefan-lanka/

Screenshot_131.png

"Virologists" - by Dr Stefan Lanka

https://truthseeker.se/wissenschafftplus-virologists/

Excerpt: Screenshot_113.png

"Interview by Michael Delias with Dr Stefan Lanka"

https://truthseeker.se/die-wurzel-interview-englisch1/

“The Misinterpretation of the Antibodies” with Dr Stefan Lanka

https://truthseeker.se/stefan-lanka-the-misinterpretation-of-the-antibodies-english-translation/

"Project Immanuel - Annoucement"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/6R3tdBHWzIBq/

"Anatomy of COVID-19 by Dr. Andrew Kaufman"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/U2xM8ZJ0Xmdx/

"Dr Andrew Kaufman exposing the 'Covid-19' magic trick - the sleight of hand that transformed society"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/TXargSbVp7E/

"Chromosome 8 w/ David Icke and Dr. Kaufman"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4mqdwuT9YYWH/

"ZERO Evidence that COVID Fulfills Koch's 4 Germ Theory Postulates - Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Sayer Ji"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/wsMSLxTUuzzK/

"Danish Make-up Study is Beautiful" by Dr Andrew Kaufman

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lokF2Gk1MxN1/

"Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial"

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

"More Than a Dozen Credible Medical Studies Prove Face Masks Do Not Work Even In Hospitals!"

https://visionlaunch.com /more-than-a-dozen-credible-medical-studies-prove-face-masks-do-not-work-even-in-hospitals/

"German Neurologist Warns Against Wearing Facemasks: ‘Oxygen Deprivation Causes Permanent Neurological Damage"

https://www.sott.net/article/442455-German-Neurologist-Warns-Against-Wearing-Facemasks-Oxygen-Deprivation-Causes-Permanent-Neurological-Damage

"COVID-19 Masks Are a Crime Against Humanity and Child Abuse"

https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-masks-crime-against-humanity-child-abuse/5726059

"Masks, false safety and real dangers, Part 3: Hypoxia, hypercapnia and physiological effects"

https://pdmj.org/papers/masks_false_safety_and_real_dangers_part3/

"Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory by David Crowe"

http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

"Antibody Testing for COVID-19 by David Crowe"

http://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/AntibodyTestingForCOVID.pdf

"The Infectious Myth - Stephen Bustin on Challenges with RT-PCR"

https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-stephen-bustin-on-challenges-with-rt-pcr/

"The Infectious Myth - Simplifying RT-PCR"

https://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the-infectious-myth-simplifying-rt-pcr/

"Comparison of 33 FDA-approved RT-PCR COVID-19 tests."

https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/FDATestSummary.pdf

"Isolation versus Purification"

https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/IsolationVersusPurification.php

"Truthiverse Episode 2 w/ David Crowe: Coronavirus, Suppressed Medical Science & the Infectious Myth"

"Has the existence of polio, measles, hiv, cmv, ebv, hep c, ebola, the flu, zika and now corona viruses been demonstrated and scientifically proven?" by Dr Robert Young

https://phoreveryoung.wordpress.com/2020/01/25/dismantling-the-viral-theory/

"Dr Robert Young speaks out about COVID & other matters part 1"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/N19NmEfkiXy6/

"Dr Robert Young speaks out about COVID & other matters part 2"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4pK2nVjv2ei5/

"Dr. Tom Cowan – COVID-19 Is Just Smoke and Mirrors"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/IdfRxxDVZckb/

"Live From NPHET Which Is Unable to Provide Any Scientific Proof That Covid19 Exists" with journalist Gemma O'Doherty

https://gemmaodoherty.com/investigations/live-from-nphet-which-is-unable-to-provide-any-scientific-proof-that-covid19-exists/

Here are 2 compilation pdfs containing ~60 responses from 47 institutions in 10 countries re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2” last updated February 12, 2021:

Part 1: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-1.pdf

Part 2: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-existence-causation-47-institutions-Feb-12-2021-chrono-part-2.pdf

People can also visit this page by Christine Massey to be up to date with all of these challenges and their respective responses.

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

"The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV,HCV and SARS Viruses"

Screenshot_130.png

"Did you know the bogus idea of 'social distancing' was invented by a 14-year-old girl during the Bush administration in 2006?"

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/489710-social-distancing-bush-lockdown-covid/

For more related information.

"The inconvenient facts about the "coronavirus pandemic""

https://steemit.com/health/@johnblaid/the-inconvenient-facts-about-the-coronavirus-pandemic

"The existence of ANY "virus""

https://steemit.com/health/@johnblaid/the-existence-of-any-virus

"A Cornucopia of Categorized Links Exploring & Exposing COVID-19 Lies & the Liars Who Tell Them (Regularly Updated Database)"

https://snooze2awaken.com/2020/05/08/a-cornucopia-of-categorized-links-exploring-exposing-covid-19-lies-the-liars-who-tell-them-regularly-updated-database/

"QUESTIONING COVID

Clinicians, Researchers, & Health Experts from Around the World Interrogating the Mainstream Narrative Around the Pandemic"

https://questioningcovid.com/

Alternative theory of why some, NOT all, are falling ill and die under the false label of "COVID-19" showing symptoms of blood clots and hypoxia. Air pollution is one huge environmental factor which plays a part of the discussion that is currently not being discussed. The reason for that to me is obvious, the "virus" is partly used as the cover story for environmental pollution, this is how big corp get away with it.

Lets start with Wuhan: "In 2015, a documentary about air pollution in China, titled “Under the Dome,” received 100 million views by Chinese netizens within 48 hours. In the film, a 6-year-old girl told the interviewer she doesn’t know what a white cloud looks like. The film director raised the question of China’s development model and was forced to cut that part out for fear of it not passing the censor. Government censors then quickly shut the film down after its popularity proved it touched a nerve of the country."

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/09/communist-china-attempts-hide-yet-another-mass-protest-authoritarian-rule/

"Air pollution is linked to an increased risk of developing an irregular heartbeat -- a risk factor for stroke -- and blood clots in the lung, finds a large study. The evidence suggests that high levels of certain air pollutants are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular problems, but exactly how this association works has not been clarified."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140604203052.htm

"Small amounts of cyanide bind to the ferrous ion on the hemoglobin molecule, which does not interfere with oxygen binding. However, cyanosis can occur as a preterminal event if a large amount of cyanide exposure occurs. Hypoxia in the presence of adequate oxygen occurs due to the inability of mitochondria to use oxygen as the terminal electron acceptor in the electron transport chain."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781416029717100170

"Coronavirus Pandemic 2019: Environment Omitted"

https:// harvoa-med.blogspot .com/2020/04/COVID2020.html

"Doctor Exposes the Corona Effect – COVID is Blood Coagulation"

https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/doctor-exposes-the-corona-effect-covid-is-blood-coagulation

__________________________________