1,053

Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2

Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr Stefano Scoglio & Konstantin Demeter
Even the Robert Koch Institute and other health authorities cannot present decisive proof that a new virus named SARS-CoV-2 is haunting us. This alone turns the talk of dangerous viral mutations into irresponsible fearmongering and the so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests definitely into a worthless venture.

In a request for a study which shows complete isolation and purification of the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2, Michael Laue from one of the world’s most important representatives of the COVID-19 “panicdemic,” the German Robert Koch Institute (RKI), answered that [1]:

I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.

This is a more than remarkable statement, it is admitting a complete failure. This concession is in line with the statements we presented in our article “COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless” which OffGuardian published on June 27th, 2020 — a piece that was the first one worldwide outlining in detail why SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests are worthless for the diagnosis of a viral infection.

One of the crucial points in this analysis was that the studies contending to have shown that SARS-CoV-2 is a new and potentially deadly virus have no right to claim this, particularly because the studies claiming “isolation” of so-called SARS-CoV-2 in fact failed to isolate (purify) the particles said to be the new virus.

This is confirmed by the answers of the respective studies’ scientists to our inquiry, which are shown in a table in our piece — among them the world’s most important paper when it comes to the claim of having detected SARS-CoV-2 (by Zhu et al.), published in the New England Journal of Medicine on February 20, 2020, and now even the RKI.

Incidentally, we are in possession of a further confirmatory answer from authors [2] of an Australian study.

Wanted, in vain: SARS-CoV-2 virus

Additionally, Christine Massey, a Canadian former biostatistician in the field of cancer research, and a colleague of hers in New Zealand, Michael Speth, as well as several individuals around the world (most of whom prefer to remain anonymous) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to dozens of health and science institutions and a handful of political offices around the world.

They are seeking any records that describe the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus from any unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient.

But all 46 responding institutions/offices utterly failed to provide or cite any record describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation; and Germany’s Ministry of Health ignored their FOI request altogether.

The German entrepreneur Samuel Eckert asked health authorities from various cities such as München (Munich), Dusseldorf and Zurich for a study proving complete isolation and purification of so-called SARS-CoV-2. He has not obtained it yet.

Rewards for proof of isolation and causality

Samuel Eckert even offered €230,000 to Christian Drosten if he can present any text passages from publications that scientifically prove the process of isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and its genetic substance. The deadline (December 31, 2020) has passed without Drosten responding to Eckert.

And another deadline passed on December 31 without submission of the desired documentation. In this case the German journalist Hans Tolzin offered a reward of €100,000 for a scientific publication outlining a successful infection attempt with the specific SARS-CoV-2 reliably resulting in respiratory illness in the test subjects.

Particle size variation also reduces virus hypothesis to absurdity

Recently we are being scared by alleged new strains of “SARS-CoV-2”, but that claim is not based on solid science.

First of all, you cannot determine a variant of a virus if you haven’t completely isolated the original one.

Secondly, there are already tens of thousands of supposed new strains, “found” since last winter all over the world. In fact, the GISAID virus data bank has now more than 452,000 different genetic sequences that claim to represent a variant of SARS-Cov2.

So, to claim that now suddenly there are “new strains” is hogwash even from an orthodox perspective, because from that perspective viruses mutate constantly. Thus, they can constantly proclaim to have found new strains, perpetuating the fear.

Such fearmongering is all the more absurd when one casts a glance at the electron micrographs printed in the relevant studies, which show particles that are supposed to represent SARS-CoV-2. These images reveal that these particles vary extremely in size. In fact, the bandwidth ranges from 60 to 140 nanometers (nm). A virus that has such extreme size variation cannot actually exist.

For example, it can be said of human beings that they vary from about 1.50 meters to 2.10 meters, as there are several individuals of different heights. Now, saying that viruses as a whole range from 60 to 140 nm — as did Zhu et al.— may eventually make sense; but to say that the individual SARS-Cov2 virions vary so much would be like saying that John varies his height from 1.60 to 2 meters depending on the circumstances!

One could reply that viruses are not human individuals, but it is also true that, according to virology, each virus has a fairly stable structure. So, with SARS-Cov2 they are taking liberties of definition which further confirm that everything on this specific virus is even more random than usual. And that license of unlimited definition led to the fact that the Wikipedia entry on coronavirus was changed, and now reports that “Each SARS-CoV-2 virion has a diameter of about 50 to 200 nm”.

That would be like saying that John varies his height from 1 to 4 meters according to circumstances!

What is passed off as SARS-Cov2 are actually particles of all kinds, as can also be seen from the images provided by the mentioned paper by Zhu et al. Below is the photo that Zhu et al. present as the photo of SARS-Cov2:

Through a screen size meter (FreeRuler), the particles that the authors assign to SARS-CoV-2 can be measured. The enlarged particles of the left side photograph measure about 100 nm each (on a 100 nm scale). But in the image on the right side, all the small particles indicated with arrows as SARS-CoV-2, measured on a scale of 1 MicroM (1,000 nm), have totally different sizes.

The black arrows actually indicate vesicles. Measuring some of these particles with the ruler, the result is that in the central vesicle the highest particle at the center measures almost 52nm, thus below the range proposed by Zhu et al (60 to 140 nm); the particle immediately to its right measures a little more, about 57.5nm, but still below limit; while, almost at the center of the lowest vesicle, the largest particle (yellow arrow) measures approximately 73.7nm, falling within the broad margins of Zhu et al.; finally, in the lower-left vesicle, the largest particle measures a good 155.6nm, i.e. well above the maximum limit defined by Zhu et al. (140nm).

It is likely that the correction made lately on Wikipedia was aimed precisely at covering this problem.

There are other strong indications that the particles referred to as SARS-CoV-2 may actually be those harmless or even useful particles, called “extracellular vesicles” (EVs), which have extremely variable dimensions (from 20 to 10,000nm), but which for the most part range from 20nm to 200nm, and which include, as a sub-category, that of “exosomes.”

Exosomes are particles produced by our cells and contain nucleic acids, lipids and proteins, and are involved in various activities useful to our body, such as the transport of immune molecules and stem cells, as well as the elimination of the cell’s catabolic debris.

Exosomes account for perhaps the largest share of EVs, and have been the object of numerous studies for over 50 years. Although few have heard of these beneficial particles, the scientific literature on them is huge, and only on PubMed, if one types “exosome,” over 14,000 studies are provided! We cannot go into detail about EVs and exosomes here, but it is important to point out how they are indistinguishable from viruses, and several scientists think that in reality what is defined as a dangerous virus is nothing but a beneficial exosome.

This is immediately visible under the electron microscope [3]:

As can be seen, the largest of the exosomes is of the same size and structure of the alleged SARS-CoV-2, and it is therefore plausible to believe that, in the large sea of particles contained in the supernatant of the COVID-19 patient’s broncho-alveolar fluid, what is taken to be SARS-CoV-2 is but an exosome.

Why Purification is vital to proving Sars-Cov-2 exists

So, logically, if we have a culture with countless extremely similar particles, particle purification must be the very first step in order to be able to truly define the particles that are believed to be viruses as viruses (in addition to particle purification, of course, it must then also be determined flawlessly, for example, that the particles can cause certain diseases under real and not just laboratory conditions).

Therefore, if no particle “purification” has been done anywhere, how can one claim that the RNA obtained is a viral genome? And how can such RNA then be widely used to diagnose infection with a new virus, be it by PCR testing or otherwise? We have asked these two questions to numerous representatives of the official corona narrative worldwide, but nobody could answer them.

Hence, as we have stated in our previous article, the fact that the RNA gene sequences – that scientists extracted from tissue samples prepared in their in vitro studies and to which the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were finally “calibrated” – belong to a new pathogenic virus called SARS-CoV-2 is therefore based on faith alone, not on facts.

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences “pulled” from the tissue samples prepared in these studies, to which the PCR tests are “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus, in this case SARS-CoV-2.

Instead, in all the studies claiming to have isolated and even tested the virus something very different was done: the researchers took samples from the throat or lungs of patients, ultracentrifuged them (hurled at high speed) to separate the larger/heavy from the smaller/lighter molecules, and then took the supernatant, the upper part of the centrifuged material.

This is what they call “isolate,” to which they then apply the PCR. But this supernatant contains all kinds of molecules, billions of different micro- and nanoparticles, including aforementioned extracellular vesicles (EVs) and exosomes, which are produced by our own body and are often simply indistinguishable from viruses:

Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension,

…as it says in the study The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses published in May 2020 in the journal Viruses.

So, scientists “create” the virus by PCR: You take primers, ie. previously existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks, you modify them based on purely hypothetical reasoning, and put them in touch with the supernatant broth, until they attach (anneal) to some RNA in the broth; then, through the Reverse Transcriptase enzyme, you transform the thus “fished” RNA into an artificial or complementary DNA (cDNA), which can then, and only then, be processed by PCR and multiplied through a certain number of PCR cycles.

(Each cycle doubles the quantity of DNA, but the higher the number of cycles necessary to produce detectable “virus” material, the lower the reliability of the PCR — meaning its ability to actually “get” anything at all meaningful from the supernatant. Above 25 cycles the result tends to be meaningless, and all current circulating PCR tests or protocols always use way more than 25 cycles, in fact usually 35 to 45.)

To make matters worse, the primers are constituted of 18 to 24 bases (nucleotides) each; the SARS-Cov2 virus is supposedly composed of 30,000 bases; so the primer represents only the 0.08 percent of the virus genome. This makes it even less possible to select the specific virus you are looking for on such a minute ground, and moreover in a sea of billions of very similar particles.

But there is more. As the virus you are looking for is new, there are clearly no ready genetic primers to match the specific fraction of the new virus; so you take primers that you believe may be closer to the hypothesised virus structure, but it’s a guess, and when you apply the primers to the supernatant broth, your primers can attach to any one of the billions of molecules present in it, and you have no idea that what you have thus generated is the virus you are looking for. It is, in fact, a new creation made by researchers, who then call it SARS-CoV-2, but there is no connection whatsoever with the presumed “real” virus responsible for the disease.

The “virus genome” nothing but a computer model

The complete genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been sequenced and was instead was “pieced together” on the computer. The Californian physician Thomas Cowan called this a “scientific fraud.” And he is not the only one by far!

Cowan wrote on October 15, 2020 [our emphasis]:

This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of 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.

The article section with the subheading “Whole Genome Sequencing” showed 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 reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).

So, one may ask, how then did they sequence the virus, ie. analyse it genetically?

Well, they did not analyse the whole genome, but instead took some sequences found in the cultures, claimed without proof that they belonged to a new specific virus, and then made some sort of a genetic computer puzzle to fill up the rest.They use the computer modelling to essentially just create a genome from scratch, as the molecular biologist Andrew Kaufman says.

Maybe then it’s no surprise that one of the primers of the test developed by the Pasteur Institute corresponds exactly to a sequence of chromosome 8 of the human genome.

No proof that SARS-CoV-2 can fly

Supposedly to stop the spread of the alleged new virus, we are being forced to practice various forms of social distancing and to wear masks. Behind this approach is the idea that viruses and in particular SARS-CoV-2, believed to be responsible for the respiratory disease Covid-19, is transmitted by air or, as has been said more often, through the nebulized droplets in the air from those who cough or sneeze or, according to some, just speak.

But the truth is that all these theories on the transmission of the virus are only hypotheses that have never been proven.

Evidence for this was missing from the beginning. As reported by Nature in an article from April 2020, experts do not agree that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne, and according to the WHO itself “the evidence is not convincing.”

Even from an orthodox point of view, the only studies in which the transmission of a coronavirus (not SARS-Cov2) by air has been preliminarily “proven” have been carried out in hospitals and nursing homes, in places that are said to produce all types of infections due to hygienic conditions.

But no study has ever proven that there is transmission of viruses in open environments, or in closed but well-ventilated ones. Even assuming that there is this transmission by air, it has been stressed that, for the “contagion” to occur, it is necessary that the people between whom the alleged transmission occurs are in close contact for at least 45 minutes.

In short, all the radical distancing measures have no scientific ground.

No asymptomatic “infection”

Since particle purification is the indispensable prerequisite for further steps, i.e. proof of causality and “calibration” of the tests, we have a diagnostically insignificant test and therefore the mantra “test, test, test” by the WHO’s Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, mentioned in our article from June 27, has to be called unscientific and misleading.

This holds especially true for testing people without symptoms. In this context even a Chinese study from Wuhan published in Nature on November 20, 2020, in which nearly 10 million people were tested and all asymptomatic positive cases, re-positive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the PCR test resulted negative, found that:

All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.

Even the orthodox British Medical Journal recently joined in the criticism.

Shortly before Christmas, the science magazine published the article “COVID-19: Mass testing is inaccurate and gives false sense of security, minister admits” explaining how the testing being deployed in parts of the UK is simply not at all accurate for asymptomatic people and arguing that it cannot accurately determine if one is positive or negative, as Collective Evolution wrote. (The WHO themselves have since admitted as much. Twice. – ed.)

Already a few weeks before, you could read in The BMJ that:

Mass testing for COVID-19 is an unevaluated, underdesigned, and costly mess,

And:

Screening the healthy population for COVID-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced nationwide

And that [our emphasis]:

“the UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines,

Apart from that, the lawyer Reiner Füllmich, member of the German Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee “Stiftung Corona Ausschuss”, said that Stefan Hockertz, professor of pharmacology and toxicology, told him that thus far no scientific evidence has been found for asymptomatic infection.

When asked, the Robert Koch Institute was unable to send us a single study demonstrating that (a) “positive” asymptomatic persons made someone else sick (not just “positive”), that (b) “positive” persons with symptoms of illness made someone else sick (not just “positive”), and that (c) any person at all who tested “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 made another person “positive.” [4]

“If you would not test anymore, Corona would disappear”

Even back in May, a major publication such as the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that a “positive” PCR result does not necessarily indicate presence of viable virus,” while a recent study in The Lancet says that “RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness.“

Against this background, one can only agree with Franz Knieps, head of the association of company health insurance funds in Germany and for many years in close contact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who stated in mid-January that “if you would not test anymore, Corona would disappear.”

Interestingly, even the hyper-orthodox German Virus-Czar and main government adviser on lockdowns and other measures, Christian Drosten, has contradicted himself on the reliability of PCR testing. In a 2014 interview regarding PCR testing for so-called MERS-CoV in Saudi Arabia he said:

The [PCR] method is so sensitive that it can detect a single hereditary molecule of the virus. For example, if such a pathogen just happens to flutter across a nurse’s nasal membrane for a day without her getting sick or noticing anything, then she is suddenly a case of MERS. Where fatalities were previously reported, now mild cases and people who are actually in perfect health are suddenly included in the reporting statistics. This could also explain the explosion in the number of cases in Saudi Arabia. What’s more, the local media boiled the matter up to unbelievable levels.”

Sound vaguely familiar?

And even Olfert Landt is critical about PCR test results, saying that only about half of those “infected with corona” are contagious. This is more than remarkable because Landt is not only one of Drosten’s co-authors in the Corman et al. paper — the first PCR Test protocol to be accepted by the WHO, published on January 23, 2020, in Eurosurveillance — but also the CEO of TIB Molbiol, the company that produces the tests according to that protocol.

Unfortunately, this conflict of interest is not mentioned in the Corman/Drosten et al. paper, as 22 scientists — among them one of the authors of this article, Stefano Scoglio — criticized in a recent in-depth analysis.

Altogether, Scoglio and his colleagues found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors,” including Christian Drosten, as well as various fundamental scientific flaws. This is why they concluded that “the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.”

On January 11, 2021, the editorial team of Eurosurveillance responded to Torsten Engelbrecht’s e-mail asking for a comment on this analysis:

We are aware of such a request [to retract the Corman/Drosten et al. paper] but we hope you will understand that we are currently not commenting on this. However, we are working towards a decision by the end of January 2021.

On January 27, Engelbrecht approached the journal once more to ask again: “Now is end of January. So please allow me to ask you again: What is your comment on the mentioned analysis of your Corman/Drosten et al. paper? And are you going to retract the Corman et al. paper – or what are you going to do?” Two days later, the Eurosurveillance editorial team answered as follows:

This is taking some time as multiple parties are involved. We will communicate our decision in one of the forthcoming regular issues of the journal.

Billions upon billions wasted on tests that couldn’t mean less

Considering the lack of facts for detection of the alleged new virus and for the SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests to have any meaning, it is all the more scandalous that the costs of the tests are not publicly discussed, as they are enormous. Often, we hear politicians and talking heads state that meeting certain criteria the tests are free, but that is an outright lie. What they actually mean is that you don’t pay on the spot but with your taxes.

But regardless how you pay for it, in Switzerland, for example, the cost for a PCR test is between CHF140 and CHF200 (£117 to £167). So, let’s do the maths. At the time of writing, tiny Switzerland, with a population of 8.5 million, made about 3,730,000 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests, besides about 500,000 antigen tests, which are a bit cheaper.

Considering an average price of CHF170 per PCR test, that’s a staggering CHF634 million, or £521 million. And despite the absurdity of testing asymptomatic people, just last week, on January 27th, the Swiss Federal Council called again on the people to get tested. Announcing that, starting the next day, the Swiss will have to pay with their taxes as well for mass testing of asymptomatic people. The Swiss Federal Council estimates that this will cost about 1 billion Swiss Francs.

Epidemiologist Dr. Tom Jefferson said in an interview to the Daily Mail:

Most PCR kits still cost more than £100 to obtain privately, for example, and the [UK] Government says it is now delivering 500,000 a day. But even these figures are dwarfed by the £100 billion the Prime Minister is prepared to spend on a ‘moonshot’ dream of supplying the population with tests [PCR and other kinds – ed.] more or less on demand—only £29 billion less than the entire NHS’s annual budget.

In Germany, the price varies widely, depending also if the test is paid privately or not, but on average it is similar to those in GB, and up to date they have performed about 37.5 million PCR Tests.

That is to say, billions and billions are spent — or downright “burned” — on tests that couldn’t mean less and are fuelling worldwide molecular and digital “deer hunting” for a virus that has never been detected.

Torsten Engelbrecht is an investigative journalist from Hamburg, Germany. The significantly expanded new edition of his book “Virus Mania” (co-authored with Dr Claus Köhnlein MD, Dr Samantha Bailey MD & Dr Stefano Scolgio BSc PhD) will be available in early February. In 2009 he won the German Alternate Media Award. He was a member of the Financial Times Deutschland staff and has also written for OffGuardian, The Ecologist, Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and many others. His website is www.torstenengelbrecht.com.
Dr Stefano Scoglio, BSc PhD, is an expert in microbiology and naturopathy and is coordinating scientific and clinical research on Klamath algae extracts, and on microalgae-based probiotics, in cooperation with the Italian National Research Center and various Universities. Since 2004, he has published many articles in international scientific journals. In 2018, Scoglio was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Konstantin Demeter is a freelance photographer and an independent researcher. Together with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the “COVID-19” crisis in the online magazine Rubikon, as well as contributions on the monetary system, geopolitics, and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers.

NOTES:-

  • [1] Email from September 4, 2020 [BACK]
  • [2] Email from October 5, 2020 [BACK]
  • [3] The pictures are taken from a presentation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Ohio, one of the main proponents of the theory that viruses are actually exosomes. [BACK]
  • [4] Email from December 3, 2020 [BACK]

Header image: Alfred Abel, Rudolf Klein-Rogge, and Gertrude Welcker in Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler (1922)

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

4.9 95 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1053 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Terry
Terry
Feb 12, 2021 8:05 AM

The authors write:
“That is to say, billions and billions are spent — or downright “burned” — on tests that couldn’t mean less and are fueling worldwide molecular and digital “deer hunting” for a virus that has never been detected.” But frankly it appears to be more appropriately characterized as snipe hunting.

Paul
Paul
Feb 10, 2021 11:00 AM

The CDC article is mentioned in the post: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

As far as I understand the virus was isolated and cultivated in Vero cells until cytopathic effects could be observed. I am not a Virologist, but this seems to me a quite sensible approach:

Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation

We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).

When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.

Markos Vargas
Markos Vargas
Feb 11, 2021 10:31 AM
Reply to  Paul

My understanding is that cytopathic effects must also develop in pure Vero cell culture. Hence, the critical test is to benchmark the speed an intensity of the cytopathic effect in the inoculated samples with that observed in the pure cell culture — and such a control test is not mentioned in the CDC paper. Hence it presents no real basis for claiming that the observed cytopathic effect really pertains to a viral agent.

Scamdemic
Scamdemic
Feb 11, 2021 2:39 PM
Reply to  Paul

Incorrect. Look up a presentation by Dr Andrew Kaufman called “The rooster in a river of rats.” You don’t know what you are speaking of and the absurdity of the process by which they claim to have isolated the virus.

Deven Benders
Deven Benders
Feb 26, 2021 4:01 AM
Reply to  Paul

That is not isolation. What is the meaning of isolation? Read koch Postulates again.

Lot
Lot
Feb 10, 2021 2:24 AM

Everything that the devils make up is dutifully gobbled up by the imbecilic humanity.
It’s so easy to detect the fraud!
Imaginary mechanisms in an imaginary, energy-lacking, entity!
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-02-scientists-urge-investment-highly-potent.html
The devils just trained Taro Kono of Japan to hype up the vaccines while cutting the health funds and social services.
They push him to take Suga’s place – who refused to lockdown his country!
The mass media is bought, the people are scared because they don’t think, and they welcome the shite Taro!
Watch all over the world how this maneuvering is replicated!
This sort of operation is afoot in all countries because evil is ubiquitous, and it has no problem acquiring minions!

Jack Lewis
Jack Lewis
Feb 9, 2021 4:11 PM

NOTES:
[1] Email from September 4, 2020 [BACK]
[2] Email from October 5, 2020 [BACK]

Could we not see the actual emails?

david
david
Feb 9, 2021 3:17 PM

Sequence Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch’s Postulates

https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/9/1/18.full.pdf

Les
Les
Feb 9, 2021 2:59 AM
Thegreatcovidhoax
Thegreatcovidhoax
Feb 6, 2021 6:50 PM

Excellent piece of journalism this is what Lame stream media should be doing unfortunately they are nothing more than propagander. The NWO agenda 21\30 is in full effect. Depopulation and human enslavement.

Malatok
Malatok
Feb 6, 2021 4:21 PM

CordKary Mullis exposes Tony “da Fist” Fauci



https://www.bitchute.com/video/xLgfRJOCmeTl/
Tony Da Fist Fauci admits he is a liar…what we already knew.
https://www.rt.com/usa/510706-fauci-lied-herd-immunity/
Dr Judy A Mikovits PHD exposes the lying fraud Fauci



The PCR Deception

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jTogclgl9usP/ially, Dr. Kary B. Mullis

 
https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mullis_Truth-Vs-Medicine.pdf

Malatok
Malatok
Feb 6, 2021 4:20 PM

“Inventing the AIDS Virus”, 1996 Peter Duesberg
By Peter Duesberg
https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895264706
 “We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake. I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time. Read this book. –Kary B. Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993”
 
 
 
Opportune indeed for the Satanic pedovores and globo elitist filth that Kary Mullis conveniently died in August 2019 before this cov ID 1984 Satanic Reset agenda spawned and unleashed the living dead on humanity at Event 201.
https://archive.org/details/og-event201
 
Onward to Ouchwitz with Dr Faux Xi, the Wuflu NAZI.

THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT VS. THE TRUTH Book Excerpt By Kary Mullis Penthouse Sept. 1998

 

In spite of his lack of luster as a scientist, Gallo worked his way up in the power structure. Peter Duesberg, despite his brilliance, worked his way down. By the time AIDS came along, it was Bob Gallo whom Margaret Heckler approached when President Reagan decided that enough homosexuals picketing the White House was enough. Margaret was the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and thereby the top dog at the N.I.H. Bob Gallo had a sample of a virus that Luc Montagnier had found in the lymph node of a gay decorator in Paris with AIDS. Montagnier had sent it to Gallo for evaluation, and Bob had appropriated it in the pursuit of his own career.

https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mullis_Truth-Vs-Medicine.pdf

In the case of AIDS, the same strategy took a diabolic turn. AIDS might kill you, A.Z.T. might also. It will surely make you sick. It will prevent the proliferation of any rapidly growing cells in your body, including the CD-4 immune cells that your doctor thinks you need now more than anything. It may kill the H.I.V. It kills it in Petri dishes. But that may not cure you. The damage to you may have already been done, whatever it is. The complete absence of all H.I.V. from your body, even if it is accomplished, may not cure you of AIDS. No one has ever recovered from AIDS, even though they have recovered from H.I.V. And we are not going to give it to you in a limited dose as we do in the case of cancer chemotherapy, where we are gambling that although we are hurting you, we are hurting the cancer more and maybe you will survive longer. Here we are not gambling. No one has ever recovered from AIDS. We cannot expect that you might recover. We are going to ask you to swallow this poison until you die. About half a million people went for it. No one has been cured. Most of them are dead. The ones who are not are also taking another drug now, a protease inhibitor. Who knows what it will do? The manufacturers didn’t know when they started selling it. The FD.A. didn’t require them to show that it would cure AIDS and not kill the patient, any more than they required them to show that about A.Z.T. They only required that a surrogate goal be met. A surrogate goal means that something that we think may be related to the disease in question may be improved by the drug, like the level of CD-4 cells, whatever the fuck they are. It’s a way to get around the notion that a drug ought to be effective in curing the disease that it is sold for before it can be sold. The surrogate-goal bullshit is an indication that our F.D.A. no longer serves our needs. Or at least it does not serve our needs unless we own stock in the pharmaceutical industry and don’t give a shit about health care.

 

artgrafiken
artgrafiken
Feb 6, 2021 3:25 PM

comment image

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 6, 2021 10:43 AM

Regarding what these “experts” like Fauci. Who associated and worked with Robert Gallo, iirc, quite a decades long history of fraud, malice and incompetence, conflicts of interests.

Invested in Moderna (not that Sliaou being head of operation warspeed and having Moderna investments matters), convenient govt funding to the tune of $1b for Moderna from Fauci’s agency, before they’ve ever even had a product, vaccine manufacturers already given indemnity in February last year when America had 11 cases, no favoritism or conflicts of interests or dodgy shit there, right?

There are other two guys that are rarely ever mentioned, relating to that. One is Robert Langer (check it out if you haven’t), also incredibly shady history.

We know Kary Mullis was pretty outspoken about what a charlatan idiot Fauci is, along with Mullis’ obvious importance regarding PCR. How did he get “suicided” with such convenient timing (I haven’t looked into it)?

Anyway, regarding the sort of modern “scientific” establishments and trending, well actually society as a whole (as the intellectual capacity is clearly rapidly getting less, not that I had not noticed the decline over the past century or so, but it is much more accelerated in the past few decades), here are some reminders from H.L. Mencken.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
H. L. Mencken

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.
H. L. Mencken

People do not expect to find chastity in a whorehouse. Why, then, do they expect to find honesty and humanity in government, a congeries of institutions whose modus operandi consists of lying, cheating, stealing, and if need be, murdering those who resist?
H. L. Mencken

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken

It is the classic fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will thereby cease to be a moron.
H. L. Mencken

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 4:44 PM

Anyone feel like commenting about this? I’m copy/pasting from a comment.

“This is EXTREMELY important topic, can drive some crazy, in particular when they believe in viruses, as seen in high resolution crystallography images of those, their entire live! Here a result of a small study, pasted from AP:
Each house consists of some building blocks. You take it into pieces and can build many other houses, or not.
The COVID-19 Spike protein (YP_009724390.1), PRESENT IN the nano-particles laced Moderna, NOVAvax synthetic vaccines, is an entry door for the ‘dangerous virus’ to invade and kill.. So we are told. When you compare
covid-19 Spike protein amino acid sequence to PATENTED proteins, you will find that ~50% of it was ALREADY present in the 2017 patented Moderna vaccine AAYI60028.1 (patent US 10064934 ) and ~75% of it was ALREADY present in the 2015 NOVAVAX patented vaccine! The part of the vaccine NVX-CoV2373 content from 2015 had all 4 amino acids (out of 5 necessary and sufficient) to bind to ACE2 receptor… That’s just the begin. What else do we have in Covid-spike produced RIGHT NOW in millions of doses for the clueless poeple? Your other article had somewehre the GcMAF picture(!!) so I did a customized search for similarities between covid spike and N-acelylgalactosidase (nagalse, which was shown by the LATE Dr. Bradstreet that its presence correlates with autism spectrum in boys, the only source of it was the MMR vaccine!) shows 20% identity over 60% sequence coverage. What does it mean? Here is small piece of the result, Query is covid-spike, Sbcjt is nagalase:
Similarities like for example:
Query 226 PTHGVG 231
PT+GVG
Sbjct 499 PTNGVG 504
Query 311 FKVQGTEGL 319
F+VQ TE +
Sbjct 318 FRVQPTESI 326
Query 380 DNTFVE 385
DNTFV
Sbjct 1118 DNTFVS 1123
Query 90 KNIDAVF 96
KNID F
Sbjct 195 KNIDGYF 201
and many, many more similar chunks between the toxic nagalase from MMR vaccines and covid spike, NOW in MODERNA, Novavax, and who knows what else vaccines…
One can find similarities of that sort in MANY comparisons between COVID-19 spike and proteins, you name it: hemoglobin, VMAT-2, reproductive hormone receptors, other viruses like pox, herpes, cholera, ebola, etc.,etc. ALL THESE PIECES within that one covid spike, JUST NOW PRODUCED FOR ALL THE VACCINES, and that all while one knows, that:
If a protein has ONLY ONE ‘DRY’ 3-amino acids long chain (Asp-Arg-Tyr) motif, it is known to belongs to the s.c. class of GPCR proteins, extremely important proteins for which Stanford researchers received Nobel Prize in 2012… So do viruses really exist? Here you got 3 amino acids sequence so important, and there you have SIX overlapping amino acids and no significance???
The point is, if covid spike is similar to SO MANY totally different proteins, then where it actually comes from?
Sure, I took it from the SYNTHETIC NIH library, which has every other virus out there.
Now the FEMA camps can be build, from the marble Rockefeller house of elementary cards.”

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 5, 2021 6:33 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

Yea, it’s fairy tales…

Enrico
Enrico
Feb 5, 2021 4:40 PM

Just to say thanks for this Omni comprehensive article! Really one of the best to understand the Scamdemic. Great job folks!

Nick Patterson
Nick Patterson
Feb 5, 2021 3:30 PM

I’m a human geneticist, but this article is kind of absurd.

Sophie - Admin1
Admin
Sophie - Admin1
Feb 5, 2021 5:09 PM
Reply to  Nick Patterson

You have 24 hours to provide context for the claim before you are removed as a troll.

Tiny
Tiny
Feb 5, 2021 11:03 PM

I am sure he’s a troll. remove it now. They only waste our time.

Vasileios
Vasileios
Feb 6, 2021 7:44 AM

There is a science guy with same name,
https://www.sciencemag.org/author/nick-patterson
but More likely here we have a high chance of troll impersonation. A real scientific approach would have stricken into the most severe alleged errors (or inaccuracies) of article, and would have provided links supporting other views, not just a tiny statement. When somebody claims a scientific attribute , there is a need to verify that this person has the required mental capacity and deep knowledge to explain specific knowledge domain. Mr. Patterson could be a case where his research and expertise has no satisfactory relation with viruses concept and covid narrative. Usually trolls try to promote an all powerful, knows-all type of scientific person ( who adheres to mainstream narrative ) and question everybody else..as not specialist or worse..

Tommy
Tommy
Feb 5, 2021 11:22 AM

Dr Stefan Lanka destroys the fairly tales in virology in this piece. But the COVID cult will not listen. I’ll continue the article in a reply comment to this comment as it’s too long for one comment.

*Brief, clear and easily comprehensible refutation of the claims of all disease causing viruses*

Error and self-deception are human, understandable and excusable. What is not excusable are the constant claims of virologists that what they say and what they do is scientific. That is clearly wrong, easily verifiable and understandable for everyone. That is why the virologists who claim corona viruses or other disease-causing viruses are to be called fraudsters and are to be prosecuted using legal means so that they can withdraw their false, refuted and dangerous statements. In this way, the corona crisis and other “viral” catastrophes with resulting fatal consequences such as “AiDS”, “ebola” and other unfounded “viral” pandemics can and will not only be stopped, prevented in the future, but turned into opportunities for everyone.

The definition of what can be called a scientific statement and the resulting obligations are clearly defined. Summarized:

A. Every scientific claim must be verifiable, understandable and refutable.

B. Only if the refutation of a scientific statement by laws of thought, logic and, if applicable, by control experiments has not succeeded, may a statement be described as scientific.

C. Every scientist is obliged to check his own statements and to question them.

Because the virologists never carried out these checks themselves and, for understandable reasons, are reluctant to do so – who wants to refute their own thing, their reputation themselves – we must do this publicly with seven arguments. Every single argument alone is sufficient to refute the claimed existence of all “disease-causing viruses” and that of this type of virologist (except for researchers who deal with the existing “phages” and “giant viruses”). In the following points the word “virus” is used instead of the word combination “disease-causing virus”.

1. The fact of alignment = alignment 

Virologists have never isolated a complete genome of a virus and presented it in its entire length. They always only use very short pieces of nucleic acids, the sequence of which consists of four molecules that make up nucleic acids, which they determine and call a sequence. From a multitude of millions of such specific, very short sequences, virologists mentally assemble a fictitious long genetic strand with the help of complex computational and statistical means. They call this process alignment, which means orientation. The result of the complex alignment, this fictitious and very long genetic strand, is claimed by virologists to be the heart of a virus and also claims to prove the existence of a virus. However, such a complete strand never appears as a whole in reality or in scientific literature, although the simplest standard techniques have long been available to determine the length and composition of nucleic acids. With the use of alignment, instead of directly presenting a nucleic acid of the same length, the virologists disproved themselves.

2. The fact of the lack of control experiments on alignment / orientation 

Virologists have never carried out and documented an alignment / orientation with equally short nucleic acids from control tests. For this purpose, they MUST isolate the short nucleic acids from the ex-act same cell culture procedure, with the difference that the suspected “infecti-on” does not happen by adding supposedly “infected” samples, but with sterile materials or sterilized samples that have been “control-infected”. These logical and mandatory control tests have never been carried out and documented. With this alone, the virologists have proven that their statements have no scientific value and should NOT be passed off as scientific statements.

3. Alignment / orientation takes place only by means of conceptual constructs 

In order to be able to assemble the very short sequences of the nucleic acids used into a long genome, the virologists need a template to align the short sequences into a very long, allegedly viral genetic strand. Without such a predetermined, very long sequence, it is not possible for any virologist to conceptually / computationally create a viral genetic strand. Virologists argue that the conceptually / computationally constructed genetic strand comes from a virus because the alignment / orientation was carried out using a different, predetermined viral genetic strand. This argument of the virologists is thus briefly and clearly refuted, because all templates with which new genetic strands were conceptually / computationally generated were themselves exclusively mentally / computationally produced and did not come from a virus.

4. Viruses were never seen in a human / animal / plant or in fluids from it 

Virologists claim that infectious, i.e. intact viruses are to be found in large numbers in the blood and saliva. That is why, for example, in the Corona crisis, everyone should wear a mask. To date, however, not a single virus has been photographed in saliva, blood or in other places in humans / animals / plants or liquids, although electron microscopic images are now an easy and routinely performed standard technique. This clear and easily verifiable fact that there are no recordings of viruses in humans / animals / plants or liquids from them, refutes all virus claims. Something that has never been seen in humans / animals / plants or liquids from them should not be passed off as scientifically proven fact.

Tommy
Tommy
Feb 5, 2021 11:23 AM
Reply to  Tommy

5. The composition of the structures that virologists claim to be viruses have never been characterized biochemically 

There are two different techniques virologists use to take photos of alleged viruses. For the transparent (transmission) electron microscopy they use cell cultures, which they embed in synthetic resin, scrape into thin layers and look through. Particles that they show in such images were never isolated and their composition determined biochemically. All proteins and the long genetic strand assigned to the virus would have to be found. Neither that, nor the isolation of such embedded particles and the biochemical characterization of their composition appears in a single publication by virologists. This refutes the virologists’ claim that such recordings could be viruses. The other method that virologists use to photograph viruses under the electron microscope is simple and fast reflective electron microscopy, which is known as “negative staining”. In order to concentrate actually existing structures, such as “phages” and “giant viruses”, from all the other components, which is then referred to as “isolation”, a standard technique, density gradient centrifugation, is used. The presence, appearance and purity of these isolated structures are made visible in the electron microscope by coating these particles with a metal-containing substance and the structures below appearing as shadows in the electron beam. The other part of the isolated particles, which were made visible by means of “negative staining”, are characterized biochemically. In the case of all phages and giant viruses, always intact and very long identically composed nucleic acids are found and the result of the biochemical characterization are documented. In the case of all viruses that are classed as viruses by means of this “negative staining” technique, the following has happened. These particles are not enriched, cleaned and isolated with the density gradient centrifugation provided for this purpose, but rather sedimented on the bottom of the centrifuge tube by simple centrifugation, this is what is known as “pelleting” and then viewed under the electron microscope. The composition of such structures presented as viruses has never been determined biochemically up to today. With this easily verifiable and comprehensible statement based on all publications by virologists, in which structures in the supervision electron microscopy are reported as viruses, the virologists have also refuted this argument of the virus-existence claim simply and elegantly – without noticing it – themselves.

6. Electron microscope images, which are issued as viruses, are known typical artifacts or cell structures 

Virologists publish a variety of electron microscope images of structures that they claim to be viruses. They conceal the fact that ALL of these recordings are only typical structures of dying cell cultures or represent protein-fat-soap-bubbles made in the laboratory and have NEVER been photographed in humans / animals / plants or liquids from them. Researchers other than virologists refer to the same structures that virologists claim to be viruses, either as typical cell components such as villi (amoeba-like protuberances with which cells attach to the ground and move), as exosomes or “virus-like particles”. This is another independent proof that the statements of the virologists about seeing viruses under the electron microscope have been scientifically refuted.

7. The animal experiments of the virologists refute the virus-existence claims 

Virologists conduct animal studies to prove that the substances they work with are viruses and can cause disease. Every single publication in which such animal experiments were carried out clearly shows that the way the animals are treated produced exactly the symptoms reported as the effect of the virus. It can be seen from each of these publications that no control experiments were carried out in which the animals were treated in the same way with sterilized starting material. These two obvious facts are refuted by the virologists, who claim that they found the presence and effects of viruses in animal experiments.

Source: https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Virologists-by-Dr-Stefan-Lanka.pdf

RJ Gale
RJ Gale
Feb 5, 2021 6:13 PM
Reply to  Tommy

I have personally connected with Lanka in the past and filmed for an AIDS documentary… he too has been way of the mark on many of his claims.

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 5, 2021 6:34 PM
Reply to  RJ Gale

Care to elaborate exactly where he’s been ‘way of the mark’?

Alison Bramall
Alison Bramall
Feb 7, 2021 10:45 AM
Reply to  RJ Gale

Anyone who can’t spell ‘off’ doesn’t have any credibility with me

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 11:06 AM

Excuse me if I’m being annoying (I’m quite opinionated and if something bothers me I point it out).

I’m copy/pasting this as an example of the mentality we’re dealing with:

“Barney Fiefdom
Feb 4, 2021 9:50 PM

Reading essays/articles from Jon Rappoport is like listening to a 1st grader do a book report on a scientific journal.
His true knowledge of topics and comprehension of complex matters is massively deficient.
This article linked below is what real data & info look like:
https://www.rosemaryfrei.ca/laying-out-the-evidence/
Stick to reviewing comic books or cartoons, Jon.
They’re more your level.”

I have a lot of respect for Mr Rappoport, but anyway.

So firstly, here’s the opening of the article (notice it’s a woman, though the other poster referred to her as a man, just for laughs…):

Is it True that the New Variants are Very Dangerous?By Rosemary Frei, MSc
“A very preliminary study published Dec. 22, 2020, suggested that N501Y also is present in the South African variant named 501Y.V2. And another very preliminary study, published January 12, 2021, asserted it was also present in the new strain emerging from the Brazilian jungle, dubbed P.1.”

Anyone noticed these things popped up AFTER a year of degenerating policy, and vaccine trials (astrazeneca/oxford in SA and Brazil), along with some other stuff (like altered flu vaccines)? Not that I’m saying they were caused by the vaccine trials.

I mean, as a nutjob, I would almost suggest crazy stuff like the supposed “viruses” being resulting “signatures” from internal processes, with the factors involved dictating what that “signature” is. So with variying factors (toxins, deficiencies, environments), somewhat varying results.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 12:39 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

So I made a mistake in my previous post there (the suggestion about referring to a man as a woman)…

But here’s one of the exerpts from the opening of that article…

“According to what we hear from officials and the mainstream media, the new variants are the most dangerous and unpredictable beings since Osama bin Laden.

Everyone needs to stay safe from these invisible but murderously mighty microbes by shunning contact with the unwashed, unmasked and unvaccinated.”

Now, while that is obviously sarcastic, I was wondering, how many people actually SERIOUSLY believe that sort of thing? There’s also a cute (though glaring) error in the second sentence and I can’t tell if it’s intentional…

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 5, 2021 6:36 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

You can’t have a variant of something that doesn’t exist.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 6, 2021 1:51 AM

Sure, but there’s an even more fundamental error there. Surprised that someone hasn’t explicitly mentioned it.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 6, 2021 8:23 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

AAAnyway…

“Everyone needs to stay safe from these invisible but murderously mighty microbes by shunning contact with the unwashed, unmasked and unvaccinated.”

Microbes, or microorganisms, include bacteria, protozoa, fungi, algae, amoebas, and slime molds.

So you see…

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 6, 2021 9:05 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Just live in perpetual fear of things that do not exist, give away the life you cherish and ingest or inject toxins to make you healthy. What could go wrong?… 🙂

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 6, 2021 10:01 AM

Don’t ask me, as I don’t associate with covidiots and refuse all vaccines, medications.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 6, 2021 10:03 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Shit I went as far as boycotting ALL of alphabet/google services, which is fairly easy for me as I’ve never used a smartphone for more than a week. Never used twitter, facebook, amazon, that sort of thing.

GAGAR
GAGAR
Feb 8, 2021 3:05 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Eh, you dug yourself too deep to be able to come out.
Trolls are idiots.
Idiots are, by their nature, trolls – when they mumble their inanities.
You are covered under both!

Malatok
Malatok
Feb 5, 2021 9:11 AM

Your big chance to make a million fiat filth IOU Saudi Mercan dollahs and “save” the sheeple on top of it.
$1,000,000 Reward for Proof that COVID-19 Exists
https://healthglade.com/1000000-reward-for-proof-that-covid-19-exists/
 
The Drosten File
https://www.kla.tv/2021-01-08/17877

Drosten, like Tony the fist Fauci is a third rate liar who doesn’t even have a published thesis. Here’s a German documentary about this charlatan. But forged academic documents and dodgy plagiarized papers for “their doctorates” is par for the course among the lying hacks that Germans call their politicians. To name but a few, Zu Gutenberg, Ursula Von der Lyin, “Dr” Merkill et al.
 
https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/plagiatsvorwuerfe-welchen-politikern-der-doktortitel-entzogen-wurde-3117712.html

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 7:26 AM

Regarding the sort of social conformity…I dunno hey.

Song named Citizen from an album named The Adversary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i37fD88JTJ4

“[Verse 1]
Citizen!
Whence came your voice your right to speak?
Is there a purpose to your tongue and gnawing teeth?
I ask thee: How deep and hollow is your mouth?
What lie is too decayed for you to stomach?
[Bridge]
With humility and obedience
You pride yourself
Evasive and lukewarm
Until the end
[Verse 2]
Citizen!
The interdependent morality of your collective
Made too soft the bed in which you lie
I ask thee: Do you acknowledge your own fragility
When you sleep to serve the “Greater Good”?
[Bridge]
United in fear
Lives “hard to bear”
Illusions that “we are all peers”
I preach not for understanding
In you I have no faith
I spit at you my truth
That you are the burden of my heritage
For herein lies the irony
There is neither room nor air
For the wakeful fire
In your precious world of equality
[Verse 3]
Citizen!
You are truly faithful
To tradition when you crucify
Those whose voices burn
Alas
A hundred years from now you recite and corrupt
Their epitaphs to crucify another
To crucify”

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 7:02 AM

Can anyone show me what they consider the best example of the benefits or efficacy of vaccination?

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 7:07 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Btw, the reason for why supposed “viruses” don’t culture so well and do the things as suggested…is of course because they are products from the host, the host generated them (due to various factors)

Bubba
Bubba
Feb 5, 2021 6:16 AM

When evil occurs, those who do nothing exceed in number those who take action against it.
It is the human history that proves it by being on the same march.
That’s why contrived things like “viruses” can be foisted on the selfish, cruel selves of the uncaring, moronic species!
As long as they fantasize that they themselves are safe, it’s no matter who suffers.

What is the approximate percentage of humans affected by this, and stirred into action:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Videos.php/2021/02/02/dr-bobo-schiffmann-a-third

What is the percentage of humans inclined to do, or indifferent to, this:
https://davidicke.com/2021/02/04/pure-evil-the-boys-and-girls-being-sold-for-sex-during-covid-19-and-the-super-bowl/

Take a guess, if you ever really lived and paid attention.
If you noticed that nothing has been done about these, then you should have your answer.

I finally reached my surfeit of “public communication”.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 7:04 AM
Reply to  Bubba

Agreed. Dissociation is huge.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Feb 4, 2021 6:54 PM

Someone i know shared a URL that the University of Dusseldorf team of Dr Schaal and Dr Adams have isolated the virus.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Feb 4, 2021 6:24 PM

Question to the authors, there is this claim.
https://www.uniklinik-duesseldorf.de/forschung-lehre/coronavirus-forschung/forschungsprojekte/isolierung-des-sars-coronavirus-typ-2?fbclid=IwAR0atc3yO4-JLkYB8HI2n-FCmKVBOpEWsIU5KLQYe2Odg9r7PQQzDtB1w_k

comment image?_nc_cat=110&ccb=2&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=8ZgjyKg_8VEAX_Q_yhf&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=a2e3ee75467f6b5ced92b68536720c1a&oe=6041D111

The attempted paste isn’t working, but the gist is that Dr Schaal and Dr Adams at University Hospital Dusseldorf were able to successfully isolate SARS II from patient swabs in cell culture.

Maxwell
Maxwell
Feb 5, 2021 3:04 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

If it is done in a cell culture it is not an isolate.

Charles Gaskell
Charles Gaskell
Feb 5, 2021 4:19 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

why not?

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Feb 5, 2021 5:00 AM
Reply to  Maxwell

I have no idea if it is, as i don’t read German or Dutch, but Judy Mikovits in a recent interview stated that it’s impossible to get a virus all by itself, it cannot express itself without enabling cell culture around it. She also states the alleged SARS II virus has NOT been isolated in what she regards as the proper way, which she has done with other viruses.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Feb 4, 2021 6:16 PM

Question to the authors:

Is there a way to share with us the communications with the Robert Koch Institute? Someone i communicate with on FB, a CDC employee, is a lockdown skeptic, but a die-hard defender of the idea that an isolate has been obtained, as per the CDC website. To my question re why the Institute doesn’t know of that, she responded that she has seen no reference to that aside from this article. I don’t know what would suffice for her, a screenshot, maybe? And i’m not sure this would convince her of anything. Another person i deal with is a hard core lockdown opponent but also totally hard line re the isolation matter, he refers to Jeremy R. Hammond’s article,
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/JeremyRHammond/~3/PvxtdjTDfe0/

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 12:51 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Well, I’ll apologize for replying with this since I’m not one of the authors of this article, but here’s my (simplistic) comment for why their ideas of “isolation” are invalid, it also has an exerpt from the latest version of CDC document regarding PCR….

https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/phantom-virus-in-search-of-sars-cov-2/#comment-315596

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Feb 5, 2021 6:51 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

Yeah, saw that comment, up-voted it. The comeback now re the CDC is the phrase “at the time,” so now the claim is that things have changed since that statement was made. Not supporting, just reporting. We’re dealing with shifty manipulators here.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 6, 2021 8:21 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Problem is, they devised the test AFTER the “non-isolation” so what they then “isolated” conveniently matches their engineered/synthetic (and heavily altered) suggestions. Isolating AFTER that then, is irrelevant.

It’s moot.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 4, 2021 5:39 PM

Hello everyone.

I’m very afraid of covid because of the dreadful, high infection rate. I’ve been trying to find out just how many people are currently suspected to be covid positive, despite not being tested.

If you could help me with that, that’d be great.

Did you know, if you were to use the data from a study about tests positivites vs symptoms, if you use a PCR Ct of <=30 (and it should be less, even if the test itself is not fundamentally correct), 90% of patients that test positive would have obvious symptoms?

Okay then.

If you assume that globally Ct of <=30 was used (because we know how incorruptible societal, corporate, governmental, “scientific”, religious etc systems are, ASIDE from functional and individual errors), according to the covid cases listed by the WHO, 90 million people currently who have been tested positive, would have obvious covid symptoms.

Obviously, from the other rhetoric and suggestions about “hyperspeedspreaders”, there are many more.

What’s the estimate for the amount of positive covid cases, including those not tested?

This is terrible.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 5:06 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Judging by the downvotes, apparently sarcasm doesn’t work so well.

So let me pose it differently. The WHO, estimates around 760 million people may have covid infections, suggesting they would test positive.

Now, applying the results from a study where a Ct <=30 is used (allowing for the idea that testing protocol has not been massively flawed), 90% of those positive tests would be associated with symptoms.

That is, if MORE reasonable PCR testing protocol is used than what many of us suspect, the amount of asymptomatic supposedly positive cases is much lower than what we’re finding in these estimates and practical results.

Do YOU think 684 million people currently have obvious covid symptoms?

Malatok
Malatok
Feb 4, 2021 1:49 PM

American biochemist Kary Mullis, now deceased Aug 2019, who won the Noble Prize 1993 in chemistry for creating PCR technology, repeatedly stated throughout his career that it should not be used to test for viruses. This technology is designed to replicate DNA sequences, not test for coronavirus infections.
 

THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT VS. THE TRUTH

Book Excerpt By Kary Mullis Penthouse Sept. 1998

In the case of AIDS, the same strategy took a diabolic turn. AIDS might kill you, A.Z.T. might also. It will surely make you sick. It will prevent the proliferation of any rapidly growing cells in your body, including the CD-4 immune cells that your doctor thinks you need now more than anything. It may kill the H.I.V. It kills it in Petri dishes. But that may not cure you. The damage to you may have already been done, whatever it is. The complete absence of all H.I.V. from your body, even if it is accomplished, may not cure you of AIDS. No one has ever recovered from AIDS, even though they have recovered from H.I.V. And we are not going to give it to you in a limited dose as we do in the case of cancer chemotherapy, where we are gambling that although we are hurting you, we are hurting the cancer more and maybe you will survive longer. Here we are not gambling. No one has ever recovered from AIDS. We cannot expect that you might recover. We are going to ask you to swallow this poison until you die. About half a million people went for it. No one has been cured. Most of them are dead. The ones who are not are also taking another drug now, a protease inhibitor. Who knows what it will do? The manufacturers didn’t know when they started selling it. The FD.A. didn’t require them to show that it would cure AIDS and not kill the patient, any more than they required them to show that about A.Z.T. They only required that a surrogate goal be met. A surrogate goal means that something that we think may be related to the disease in question may be improved by the drug, like the level of CD-4 cells, whatever the fuck they are. It’s a way to get around the notion that a drug ought to be effective in curing the disease that it is sold for before it can be sold. The surrogate-goal bullshit is an indication that our F.D.A. no longer serves our needs. Or at least it does not serve our needs unless we own stock in the pharmaceutical industry and don’t give a shit about health care.

 

 

https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mullis_Truth-Vs-Medicine.pdf

Malatok
Malatok
Feb 4, 2021 1:47 PM

American biochemist Kary Mullis, now deceased Aug 2019, who won the Noble Prize 1993 in chemistry for creating PCR technology, repeatedly stated throughout his career that it should not be used to test for viruses. This technology is designed to replicate DNA sequences, not test for coronavirus infections.

THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT VS. THE TRUTH
Book Excerpt By Kary Mullis Penthouse Sept. 1998
 
We live with an uncountable number of retroviruses. They’re everywhere –and they probably have been here as long as the human race. We have them in our genome. We get some of them from our mothers in the form of new viruses –infectious viral particles that can move from mother to fetus. We get others from both parents along with our genes. We have resident sequences in our genome that are retroviral. That means that we can and do make our own retroviral particles some of the time. Some of them may look like H.I.V. No one has shown that they’ve ever killed anyone before.There’s got to be a purpose for them; a sizable fraction of our genome is comprised of human endogenous retroviral sequences. There are those who claim that we carry useless D.N.A., but they’re wrong. If there is something in our genes, there’s a reason for it. We don’t let things grow on us. I have tried to put irrelevant gene
sequences into things as simple as bacteria. If it doesn’t serve some purpose, the bacteria get rid of it right away. I assume that my body is at least as smart as bacteria when it comes to things like D.N.A.
https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mullis_Truth-Vs-Medicine.pdf
 
Think of the immune system as a camel. If the camel is overloaded, it collapses. In the 1970s we had a significant number of highly mobile, promiscuous men sharing bodily fluids and fast lifestyles and drugs. It was probable that a metropolitan homosexual would be exposed to damn near every infectious organism that has lived on humans. In fact if you had to devise a strategy to collect every infectious agent on the planet, you would build bathhouses and encourage very gregarious people to populate them. The immune system will fight, but the numbers will wear it down. The scientific issue gets tangled up with morality. What I’m describing has nothing at all to do with morality. This is not “God’s wrath” or any other absurdity. A segment of our society was experimenting with a lifestyle, and it didn’t work. They got sick. Another segment of our pluralistic society, call them doctor/scientist refugees from the failed War on Cancer, or just call them professional jackals, discovered that it did work. It worked for them. They are still making payments on their new BMWs out of your pocket. I was invited by the Glaxo Pharmaceutical Company to speak at a conference. They sent me a letter in December of 1993 asking me to be the November 1994 symposium banquet speaker. If that time was not convenient for me, they wanted me to speak at the November 1995 banquet. Dr. John Partridge, who was the director of the Chemical Development Division, had not met me personally but had heard about a lecture I had given in 1991 at the Gordon Research Conference that, in his words, was “the most highly praised lecture that I have ever heard about from my academic and industrial colleagues.”He was looking for “particularly articulate scientists who bridge the biochemical and medical disciplines and routinely engage in ‘out of the box’ thinking.”Well, that certainly was me.
Cordially,Dr. Kary B. Mullis
https://davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mullis_Truth-Vs-Medicine.pdf
 
 

Jack R
Jack R
Feb 4, 2021 12:05 PM

If those PCR test prices are accurate in the UK. That would mean the UK government has spent at least £7 billion on fraudulent testing. Add on to that £12 billion non existent track and trace and another £ 10s of billions on vaccines and £40+ billion on furlough and this little virus soon turns out to be a £100 billion money maker for some people.

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 6, 2021 9:31 AM
Reply to  Jack R

Think about that number £ globally, and not just in respect to pharmaceutical investments/profits. ‘Pandemic bonds’ are another scam: ‘World Bank pandemic financing scheme serves private sector interests over global health security, new LSE analysis suggests’
Source: https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2019/j-October-2019/World-Bank-pandemic-financing-scheme-serves-private-sector-interests-over-global-health-security-new-LSE-analysis-suggests

Also, who pays back this? ‘The Covid-19 Pandemic Has Added $19.5 Trillion to Global Debt”Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-coronavirus-global-debt/

It’s the greatest heist in history, and normal people will be paying off debt, like slaves, all our lives. I don’t see any other way this works out?…

Stina
Stina
Feb 4, 2021 10:25 AM

When we refuse to compare or adjust scientific conclusion with our personal life’s experience we run the danger of alienating us from our human nature. Instrumentalising science but ignoring experience is how transhumanism is possible.
I don’t believe in classic germ theory anymore as it is ignorantly propagated by a majority of medical professionals. I don’t believe in (most) doctors anymore. Simply because my experience is that visiting a doctor and taking a pill never made me better! Many people have this experience but we don’t talk about this perceived contrast that we trust this science though generally it can’t make us better. Instead we have a blind faith in a concept called “medical progress”. Is it really progress though and is this progress scientifically based at all?
I have a deep rooted interest in experiencing life and using my observations for it though scientifically trained. I was taught to not give observational studies too much attention as they can’t prove causality. And yet I can say that any cold or other inflammatory reaction I have seen on my kids and I for the past few years, they were never an infection caused by another person. Simply because we are very isolated. All illness always came at a time when we returned to “equilibrium” after a a stressful time or when we deliberately took supplements to support our body.
I’ve observed illness as a method of cleansing for the body that better not be suppressed with pills. The idea that illness is a way of healing is one that a broad medical science refuses to even think about and that is considered sham. I’ve also seen my kid come back from autism without the help of a clinician at my side. And I can tell you that he was not ill before but one infection after the other occured as he got better. My kid forced me to rethink health in a way that made me suffer for years because I experienced so much resistance fighting for my ideas. And yet my kid is normal, social, functional now and within 4 weeks of as little a thing as changing a diet to avoid an invisible intolerance he started to speak fluently at the age nearly 4. Without therapy. He did this on his own. We have to rethink illness. And taking yet another look at our beliefs about viruses is a great way to start. Keep going Torsten Engelbrecht, Samuel Eckert, Hans Tolzin and all others that are helping to wake up more scientists to ask the right questions. This is the time to do it.

R Anand
R Anand
Feb 4, 2021 11:46 AM
Reply to  Stina

Beautifully said!

And, really happy to see your son recover the natural way.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 7:50 AM
Reply to  Stina


“I’ve observed illness as a method of cleansing for the body that better not be suppressed with pills.”

“And yet my kid is normal, social, functional now and within 4 weeks of as little a thing as changing a diet to avoid an invisible intolerance he started to speak fluently at the age nearly 4.”

I’ll try to expand on this.

The body is ALWAYS trying to detoxify various toxins. Depending on the status (broadly mitochondrial and ATP dysfunction related), its capacity to do so may be limited. Some of “signatures” of excess toxicity and deficiency would be things like “viruses”.

There are many known processes and mechanisms to support the potential for supposed “viruses” as such to spawn from the body. Results like DNA to RNA breakage, truncated sequences, protein toxic, broken mutated proteins and ejections. It is absurd to think that “viruses” can not be associated with that. The causes of those results are ubiquitous lifestyle, social, environmental factors (toxicity and deficiencies).

It is then, ABSURD to think, for example, that you can address a deficiency then with anything other than the element that is deficient. In the case of RTIs, vitamin D of course being one such clearly implicated factors.

Now, instead of addressing that, you want to instead, try and attack that bodily result with more toxicity?

Stina
Stina
Feb 5, 2021 10:58 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Yes. Brilliant. Thank you. I am not a medical scientist, nor do I think I want to be, but I’ve come across this kind of science as well explaining what happens at cellular level when our bodies lose ability to detox and support healthy functionalilty. Cytokine storms, inflammation, telomeres and all of it. But I only really understand half of it. I wish more doctors would do though. It is their job. I turn to functional medicine as these doctors seem to be curious enough to look for the causes.
May I add poor psycho hygiene to your list of ubiquitous lifestyle causes. Chronic stress and lack of attunement to your physical and emotional needs seem to result in these cellular changes as well. It must be all interconnected.
And all we ever do conventionally is blame the virus or the tick bite or the insulin or whatever is present in the body at the time (cholesterol) instead of looking why they are there in the first place and what this has to do with our modern lifestyle (or epigenetics etc). Instead we call the human body deficient and broken. What happened to our core human curiosity of wanting to understand the “why” something is happening? Just thinking…

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 11:43 AM
Reply to  Stina

“May I add poor psycho hygiene to your list of ubiquitous lifestyle causes. Chronic stress and lack of attunement to your physical and emotional needs seem to result in these cellular changes as well. It must be all interconnected.”

They do, and it is. This is why Vitamin D or rather, actually, sunlight (because of the psychological effects stemming from deficiency/poor bodily function) is so crucial.

The reason I say sunlight rather than vitamin D (with known hormonal, immune system, genetic regulation properties), is because while it is clearly very important is only one aspect of *necessary sunlight*. Serotonin, melatonin, protons, infrared, vitamin D. All of that can and does affect your health and psychological state.

Regarding that “mood” and genetic regulation, it’s doubly important because of all the endocrine disruption and synthetic estrogenic CRAP in the environment. Which, btw, even things like fluoride contribute to. You know, the “soyboy” and androgynous sort of prevalence.

Many people refuse to want to accept that, shit, often I’ve been attacked or banned from places for saying these things. They refuse to accept that things like excessive endocrine disruptors, toxic xenoestrogens can mess up their bodies, minds, hormones. And it’s super obvious.

And that’s another thing, iodine with respect to developmental, mental, hormonal, immune system, mitochondrial function and then the effects of fluoride, chlorine and bromine relating to that. Iodine being very essential, of course. Fluorine, chlorine, bromine interferes with it, causing effective deficiency (other than having their associated toxic effects).

It was very conveniently demonized with the advent of rockefeller-styled establishment in favour of the industrial antibiotics, and has been marginalized (like sunlight) for a very long time. It is THE PRIME antibiotic. And you know, they can’t deal with competition.

Both iodine and vitamin D (and I’m sure other things) have conveniently flawed math associated relating to the institutional RDI/RDAs, btw.

As a random vague example of how a combination of a few basic things contribute, Japan for instance has rather low vaccine trust/administration as well as better regulation (having banned some vaccines other countries still use) compared to most western countries (particularly the likes of the UK, Germany, Australia, America, etc). They also typically have higher iodine intake, generally better diets but also avoid water fluoridation.

Those things, for example, contribute to things such as them having higher life expectancy, IQs, better general health, lower infant and childhood death and disease.

thordaddy
thordaddy
Feb 4, 2021 6:59 AM

“COVID-19” is a crime syndicate.

“SARS-COV2” is a “virtual virus.”

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 4, 2021 6:58 AM

Questions to the authors:

Another commenter, Penelope, raises the question of whether it’s even possible to purify a virus. I vaguely remember seeing that only one virus has ever been isolated and it was in either a flora or fauna sea specimen. It’s such a good question but didn’t occur to me. It would be so good to identify viruses that have been isolated and how the scientific work done convincingly shows they have been isolated.

1. Have any other viruses been isolated and what are they? If not, is it then simply impossible to isolate a virus? If so, why only those and not others?

2. What other methods are used to identify viruses, assuming other methods are?
— If someone presents with a distinctive set of symptoms how would it be determined that a virus is responsible?
— Are antibody tests used?

Torsten Engelbrecht
Torsten Engelbrecht
Feb 4, 2021 9:59 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Dear Petra!

There are studies showing that it is possible to purify particles that are claimed to be “evil” viruses, see for example http://www.tig.org.za/Friend.pdf and Crawford LV, Crawford EM, The properties of Rous sarcoma virus purified by density gradient centrifugation. Virology 1961. 13:227-232, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13696318 Of course, even if you have purified the particles, this doesn’t mean anything re where these particles come from and whether theses particles have disease-making properties.

This is why your first question, for example, should be “Have any other viruses PARTICLES been isolated and what are they?”

And let’s first have a really solid proof that there is an “evil” virus around, only then it would be justified to think about your question “If someone presents with a distinctive set of symptoms how would it be determined that a virus is responsible?”

Or would you think about the question “If someone presents with a distinctive set of symptoms how would it be determined that the devil is responsible?”, until the existence of the devil has been proven beyond doubt…. 😉

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 4, 2021 12:22 PM

Thanks, Torsten.

Is it really necessary to prove beyond doubt? If it’s pretty compelling perhaps that’s good enough to work with in the absence of the ability to prove beyond doubt?

If we go with “compelling” rather than proven beyond doubt what would you say about noroviruses, for example? I shall buy your book and will not pester you with more questions but if you could just answer this one.

Stina
Stina
Feb 4, 2021 12:33 PM

“If someone presents with a distinctive set of symptoms how would it be determined that a virus is responsible?”
SPOT ON. This is exactly the medical discussion I’m missing at large. Even if we don’t doubt the existence of viruses: how did it happen that the causality virus causes disease is considered a given by almost all. And how come “qualified” MDs don’t question it at all? After all they’re the ones who take the histories from the patients, who get to observe the development of serious illness as a process. They could notice that a given set of symptoms could indeed be more like a systemic problem and not be reduced to one agent.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 4, 2021 7:39 PM
Reply to  Stina

Importantly, what causes supposed, hypothetical viruses.

Coz I mean, if I look at all the data for everyone ever all over the world, many seem to get these sort of symptoms associated with covid (and other things) in winters or when they lack sunlight.

As an example of one factor, it’s probably of no consequence, the role of something like vitamin D in genetic regulation…Then its association with dysfunction from deficiency, DNA to RNA breakages, toxic ejected broken proteins, truncated sequences, etc. Though of course, not that people with those symptoms typically have those sort of deficiencies, right? I’m pretty sure there’s no association.

But even aside from that, regarding just sunlight, what difference could melatonin, serotonin metabolism make? A lot of people don’t consider that.

Not that it’s the only example or factor, that singular attribution to a “virus” is simply wrong.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 4, 2021 5:52 PM

“Of course, even if you have purified the particles, this doesn’t mean anything re where these particles come from and whether theses particles have disease-making properties.”

Right…

So, I have another question, let’s say you have a couple of these particles (I mean, let’s allow that part of the fantasy, for argument’s sake).

If I throw them at you, like darts, and you open your mouth and inhale or swallow a couple of them…what do you think will happen? Terrible infection right? I mean, clearly I needed 4 masks and a spacesuit to keep me safe. Which is why I live underwater now.

Dilution is the solution, you know, like radiation.

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 6, 2021 9:36 AM

No where in those publications is a ‘purified virus’…

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 5, 2021 6:45 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Also remember that most of human biology is based on ex vivo findings which make them null and void because they are not what goes on in vivo (in the living body). This is the biggest logical fallacy that most people can’t comprehend. Ex vivo is not in vivo, it’s as simple as that.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 6, 2021 11:59 AM

Yes, that’s the point Sam Bailey makes in some of her videos on COVID.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyD52JnQnXkLe5HGm4IArHw

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 4, 2021 5:08 AM

Suggestion to the editors: contact the fact-checkers and suggest a debate or similar?

So far, I’ve contacted six “fact-checking” outfits and asked them to fact-check this article.

— BBC Reality Check

— RMIT ABC Fact Check

— Science (https://www.sciencemag.org/author/jon-cohen?page=2)

— Factcheck.org

— PolitiFact
Pointed out to them that they haven’t responded to the rebuttal of their alleged debunk of earlier article by Torsten and Konstantin
(https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/31/open-letter-refuting-politifacts-fact-check/)

— Facta News (Italian)
Pointed out to them that they haven’t responded to the rebuttal of their alleged debunk of Stefano’s work
(https://www.databaseitalia.it/dott-stefano-scoglio-fact-checkers-o-falsologi-la-mia-replica-ai-soldatini-del-dittatore/?fbclid=IwAR2qMFtAW9cu27I1eAaI5al7hg4BSUhroOSwIrVbv8tlPdlipbwD4EG0Vy8#)

I invite readers to contact other fact-checking websites and perhaps respond to this comment with the fact-checkers they’ve contacted.
Wikipedia has a list of sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fact-checking_websites#United_Kingdom

If I receive any reply will let you know and I’ll continue to contact these sites … for what it’s worth.

Malatok
Malatok
Feb 4, 2021 1:40 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Wasting time with “fact checkers” is precisely what they want you to do. Avoid the keyboard GESTAPO like the plague and concentrate on reaching the drowning sheeple up to their little eyes in sheep dip before the stampede of the mindless herd sweeps you onto the Ouchwitz cattle wagons too.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 5, 2021 2:29 AM
Reply to  Malatok

The reason I contact them is in the expectation that there will be no response which is an indicator that they have nothing to refute the article with. Both response and lack of one can be powerful indicators.

GregJaxon
GregJaxon
Feb 4, 2021 1:00 AM

This is a prime example of where one can wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions despite your defective use of scientific method. You’ve overemphasized a highly mathematical requirement for the ‘proof’ of what is (yes) a conjecture about the cause of a SARS-like disease. Purifying and isolating in the manner you suggest would no doubt strengthen the scientific case for a virus (generally) or a specific viral agent, but these are by no means of the essence of the virology theory. You may as well say that because no one can purify and isolate 20 lbs of U-238 in one place at one time that it fails to exist–yes, the experiment fails but for reasons that are the essence of the theory of U-238 itself.
Scientific method is not purely Aristotelean. At many points empirical knowledge remains ‘falsifiable,’ and yet that reliance on preponderance of evidence and rigorous verification and replication lets us muddle through somehow. Has enough been done for Cov-2? Maybe not yet. Has what’s been done been misread and misused for political agendas? Absolutely! But of all the mistakes being promulgated by nationalized health systems, why focus on this?
It seems far more consequential to fret over how SARS-presenting patients are treated.
Likewise it would help far more to characterize to what extent a vaccine could ever be proven safe and effective in a short time frame. Here it clearly cannot be proven, but hardly because its target challenge was well-enough described! The trial structures and sizes are simply unprecedentedly inadequate to the task. Only a dire emergency could justify such a massive experiment on the whole human population, and no such emergency has properly been shown to obtain (i.e. we’ve survived far worse). Of all the things WRONG with this ‘plandemic’, the underlying logic of virology while always worthy of careful consideration is not the most likely problem in the system.

JonB65
JonB65
Feb 4, 2021 3:04 AM
Reply to  GregJaxon

Greg, I understand what you are saying in your first paragraph. How science go about to prove the existence of the a virus if not to isolate? I just want to understand.

Sam - Admin2
Admin
Sam - Admin2
Feb 4, 2021 3:56 AM
Reply to  GregJaxon

However, the frontline of plagues and pandemics have hitherto been fought based on presentation of life-threatening, clinically diagnosable symptoms. The ‘impact’ of the disease was evident and beyond question. With the advent of covid we are in a different realm, a far more abstract realm, as abstract as the science on which it appears to be based: a global reliance on PCR testing rather than a clinical diagnosis.

Therefore it is right to place the virology under rigorous examination. Let’s plainly examine the science behind this PCR test, which can label a healthy person unhealthy, which has the power to reclassify any generic respiratory symptoms as something notifiable and deadly and whose diagnosis trumps all other causes of death in the co-morbid.

That’s a lot of power to give a test which is potentially non-‘Aristotelian’; which has no ‘gold standard’, which hasn’t established a causal link between a pathogen and a disease; which is testing for tiny fragments of a computer simulation which may possibly not exist at all.

If virologists would prefer such scrutiny not be applied to their work then they ought to strongly discourage PCR’s use as a diagnostic tool, surely? Sure, perhaps we aren’t qualified to interpret the abstractions and subtleties, but equally well, according to the evidence above, perhaps the science is too much in its infancy, perhaps the irrefutable evidence base just isn’t there. Perhaps it’s a ghost in the institutional machine, a virologist’s wet dream. A nothing.

If this was Green-spotted Plague and was a genuinely deadly phenomenon, and if we were waking up and checking ourselves for green spots each morning and stepping over fresh corpses on our way to work each day, yes, conversations such as these would be largely redundant and we’d all happily put our faith in non-Aristotelian science in the small hope of finding a cure.

However we are resoundingly not dealign with this. And therefore articles like the above do an invaluable job highlighting how little we actually know. Most people aren’t aware.
A2

Paul
Paul
Feb 4, 2021 4:27 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Great answer.

David Meredith
David Meredith
Feb 4, 2021 9:18 PM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Thanks Sam for great answer.

Vasileios
Vasileios
Feb 6, 2021 8:54 AM
Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Please make an article about instructions from test manufacturers. Focus on misuse by the health committees of governments. German Lawyer attacking manufacturers might loose the case , because many of them clearly state on their sort instructions, sometimes in bold letters as a header. NOT TO BE USED FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES or similar.
The point is who has given the permit for health care to use a product contrary to the instructions and use results to shut down economies.
Find an example of several tests here
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/FDATestSummary.pdf
and also you can download actual instruction from manufacturers web sites..

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 4, 2021 4:28 AM
Reply to  GregJaxon

Greg, I knew from Day One there was no virus, nothing to do with the science of course because I’m clueless about virology. I knew because the fingerprints of PSYOP were all over it. My first port of call was Wikipedia as they’re good there, they always give you the clues and there it had nonsense about Chinese cobras and many-banded kraits being “reservoirs” of the virus. Why on earth would people be looking at snakes at this stage of the game and these two particular species for a virus affecting humans? Did they test other snake species and find they weren’t reservoirs? What does “reservoirs” mean? What was their method? You see how ridiculous, right? At that very moment I knew that this alleged pandemic was a psyop but, of course, one must ALWAYS keep an open mind so if any evidence appeared that contradicted this hypothesis I needed to change my belief, right? But that contradictory evidence never appeared. All the evidence coming at us supported my immediately-suspected hypothesis. It has all continued to line up PERFECTLY.

And it’s NOT confirmation bias because I genuinely do keep an open mind. When someone pointed out a spike in excess mortality figures in Europe in April last year it put me back on my heels. I didn’t wave away those statistics as some might with, “Oh, they’ve just faked the figures.” No, those figures disturbed me even though I knew that of themselves they didn’t prove the existence of COVID and they couldn’t overturn the clear evidence against it. I simply hoped for some illumination and it came in the form of NZ medical doctor, Sam Bailey, who speaks of the aggressive drug trials conducted at that time which may have been responsible for elderly people dying prematurely. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the spikes tended to occur in countries where the aggressive drug trials (the WHO “Solidarity” and Oxford University, “Recovery”) occurred. Spain had an enormous spike, for example, while neighbouring Portugal’s spike was lower than its spike in 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw5ldWr9QD0

Later, we saw Chinese people falling flat on their faces and laid out in hospital corridors, an alleged COVID patient allegedly in an ICU in the UK coughing all over the show and many other obvious nonsenses. When they hoax us they’re scrupulous in always letting us know above and beyond any naturally-occurring anomalies which of themselves are legion in any case. Also, they NEVER fake anything so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. You’ll never see a very convincing patient or loved one of someone who’s allegedly died of COVID or a doctor promulgating their BS in a convincing manner. Try as you might you will not be able to find any evidence real or fake to make a convincing case for virus, virus illness or pandemic.

The grievous error you make, Greg, is that you take what we’ve been told by media and government as the default but we know that government and media lie all the time so the question to ask is:

What evidence have government and media presented to us to give us any reason to believe in a killer virus on the loose in the first place?

Where is even a skerrick of evidence suggesting it?

Greg, it’s all smoke’n’mirrors, that’s all it is, smoke’n’mirrors and when you blow away the magic propaganda dust there’s nothing there. They bombard us 24/7 … but all they bombard us with is complete nonsense. They made up a virus and matched it with a “test” that produces meaningless results including a large number of positives and any shortfall in the numbers required is made up simply by advising health professionals to put it as cause of death for whatever reason. It’s really not that complicated.

Apart from lack of purification there are so very many reasons not to believe in virus, virus illness or pandemic. I have a page on them if you’re interested.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/blog/coronavirus-hoax-jan-2020

Please provide a single reason to believe in a killer virus, Greg, a single solitary reason outside all the viruses and other causes of disease that have been making us sick and killing us all along?

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 5:16 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

There are ALWAYS toxicity and deficiency factors at play in these supposed “outbreaks”.

Any disease/outbreak/epidemic whatever I’ve looked at, ever, anywhere in the world.

Rapaging Manatee
Rapaging Manatee
Feb 4, 2021 8:49 AM
Reply to  GregJaxon

A lot of hogwash. “Yeah there’s fraud, but it’s ok.” NO! If we allow governments and media to lie, and hospitals and drug companies to commit fraud, and unelected health idiots mass medicate us, we’ll all be broke and sick and dead. And that ~is~ the purpose, wake up!

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 10:20 PM

Capmint linked this study about PCR tests as an example:

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/7/Supplement_1/S314/6057228

“Among 61 patients with positive RT-PCR tests, 40 patients reported < 10 days of symptoms at the time of testing, 15 reported ≥10 days of symptoms, and 6 were asymptomatic. The median Ct value was 14.2 cycles (IQR, 10.2, 18.3) among patients reporting < 10 days of symptoms, 19.7 cycles (IQR, 15.3, 23.9) among patients reporting ≥10 days of symptoms, and 26.3 (IQR, 25.0, 29.1) among asymptomatic patients.”

I need to point out something again, because this makes it VERY clear that a lot of the garbage we’re being peddled in terms of the “validity” of PCR testing protocol, even allowing for the (non-existent) possibility that the PCR test can potentially be valid is simply disconnected from reality.

Okay, so we know Ct above 25 is even by their fantasy standards, unreliable as hell.

Now, those values are for when the test, which is not a clinical diagnostics tool, made up enough garbage to suggest it’s a positive result. Like how many iterations (with exponential made up crap) you try to coax something to match your wonderfully accurate preconceived notion, based on synthesized and fraudulent suggestions of a “virus” which tests only for a small sample of your suggestion. Which was conveniently engineered, in-silico from non-isolation “viral” material, as well as then modified with what appears to be arbitrary sequence additions. Which, also, BTW, happens to involve the demonization of your body, due to protein homology. Also, it allows for conflation with many other known sequences.

So aaaanyway.

Now, if we look at WHEN positive results were attained in that study, you would notice the Ct for those who are symptomatic (not that they necessarily have supposed “covid”) is rather low. Between 10-24 Ct. At higher than 25 Ct (despite the positive result), you would notice the asymptomatic.

The thing is, that’s a group of 61 people. with 55 of them having symptoms.

Let us assume then, the maximum Ct for testing, in reality for the general public globally, is no more than 30 (as per roughly the upper limit for the Ct of the asymptomatic in the study), so as to match the study parameters roughly.

So here we sit with a little bit of a problem, because 55/61 symptomatic translates to 90.16% rate of symptoms vs positive test result.

So let us then, apply that idea to all citizens on the planet. Let us assume the tests are limited to 30 Ct, max. In that case then, more than 6 billion people currently on the planet would have obvious covid symptoms, get it?

That, implies then that the practical PCR testing protocol USED IN REALITY FOR CITIZENS, related diagnoses is NOWHERE near the results from that study. Such a disconnect is of course very indicative of the policies and explains a bit about the casedemic.

It’s all fraud.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:02 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

“So let us then, apply that idea to all citizens on the planet. Let us assume the tests are limited to 30 Ct, max. In that case then, more than 6 billion people currently on the planet would have obvious covid symptoms, get it?”

Excuse me, let me just clarify, that is with matching the scenario in the study (all positives).

The point being, the ratio of obviously symptomatic to positive PCR test result is nowhere near 90.16%, meaning they are using different protocols (higher Ct, other misattributions) for citizens than that study.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:12 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

I’d like to try and expand on this, but it requires a measure of the amount of people who have been tested, not the amount of tests.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:31 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

Please, try to understand the hegelian dialectic and proxy wars.

Here’s what happened, the supposed “bad guys” (covid) is engineered as the supposed problem. The supposed “good guys”, of course, engineered that idea and the situation.

Now, like any other war (which is what it is), regarding controlled opposition, hegelian dialectic, there must be a proxy. Of course, that proxy is YOU as it is in other wars, though it used to be obfuscated with the idea of countries, religions, groups, tribes.

You are thus in this situation, directly, the territory in the proxy war. Don’t let them claim you.

Tom Sanders
Tom Sanders
Feb 3, 2021 9:06 PM

“To investigate the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in the immune population, we co-incubated authentic virus with a highly neutralizing plasma from a COVID-19 convalescent patient. ”

“Wild-type SARS CoV-2 2019 (2019-nCoV strain 2019-nCov/Italy-INMI1) virus was purchased from the European Virus Archive goes Global (EVAg, Spallanzani Institute, Rome).”

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.28.424451v1.full

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 10:48 PM
Reply to  Tom Sanders

“Wild-type SARS CoV-2 2019 (2019-nCoV strain 2019-nCov/Italy-INMI1) virus was purchased from the European Virus Archive goes Global (EVAg, Spallanzani Institute, Rome).”

Do you a see a problem with that? Wild type…purchased…associated establishment.

I mean, other than that having been engineered from synthetic results and suggestions.

You know, just like the test, which is then used to “find the real thing”…which is then used to kinda circularly lead back to those isolated viruses. Yet, with no valid starting point.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 10:53 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

Sorry, just a small correction.

You know, just like the test, which is then used to “find the real thing”…which is then used to kinda circularly lead back to those synthetic suggestions, yet with no valid starting point.

Which is then used on the newly found “real thing” and then that supposedly gets “isolated”.

And there are a few chemists, probably even some toxicologists who would like to have a word with you about all the modifications/alterations in “isolation” and how the PCR process alters crap, itself.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:42 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

So aside from all that, as one commenter points out.

“This can confirm that these functional mutations can happen in long term infections under a selective pressure applied by antiviral drugs, plasma, etc…not in normal infections that resolve, for the best or the worst, within 30 day”

rodrigo macias
rodrigo macias
Feb 3, 2021 2:51 PM

is it possible to have a link of the email answers that are not linked to the article but to the email or a picture of the email?

Paul
Paul
Feb 3, 2021 11:45 AM

Hi All,

I don’t believe this article is correct (another!) as can be read here :

https://fullfact.org/health/Covid-isolated-virus/

Therefore please ignore above article.

Stay Safe
Paul

Ooink
Ooink
Feb 3, 2021 11:59 AM
Reply to  Paul

Lol

Paul
Paul
Feb 3, 2021 2:32 PM
Reply to  Ooink

Hi ooink.

Thanks for your indepth/articulate reply.

Can you advise why my article us wrong? And why so funny please?

Regards
Paul

Maggie
Maggie
Feb 3, 2021 6:37 PM
Reply to  Paul

It is always advisable to ‘research’ information before posting. Which is what we on Off Guardian are famous for.

Maggie
Maggie
Feb 3, 2021 6:34 PM
Reply to  Paul

This company has been exposed by UK Column as a Government shill..

Paul Wilkins
Paul Wilkins
Feb 3, 2021 7:24 PM
Reply to  Maggie

Hi Maggie,

Thank you for your reply. I suggest you are wrong. Sure the website may not be 100% accurate 100% of the time. How can it? What website is? But that hardly makes it a shill does it?

The UK Column that you reference to back up your comment has an issue with 1 article from 2012. No other article.

Hardly damning evidence.

I therefore state again, ignore this article. The virus has been isolated, unless you can provide details on where the fullfact.org article is wrong?

Regards
Paul

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:22 PM
Reply to  Paul Wilkins

Paul, the site you linked to is vapid peddling that doesn’t address ANY of the issues, many of them posed in this article and many other articles.

Even in the case of them saying “isolated”, this article and others, make it clear that it’s irrelevant. Such as how the testing makes crap up that is not the same as the specimen, and also how the supposed “isolation” processes introduces other factors and effects, allowing more taint and deviation from the specimen, as well as often simply being false.

The PCR test (which, of course, is an extrapolatory research tool for making shit up, not intended as a diagnostics tool) is based on synthetic engineered suggestions of the supposed virus. That test, without an “isolated virus” is then used to find the supposed “real thing”, which is then used for “isolation”?

Sorry, but no.

Here’s a reminder of what the CDC had to say, btw. And remember, that Chinese scientist recently also said that they had not isolated it. Any supposed “isolated” virus is AFTER THE FACT of the established fraud and this practically irrelevant as it is engineered to match that.

fda.gov/media/134922

On version 06 on page 42 (with version 05 the same text was on page 39):

Performance Characteristics
Analytical Performance:
Limit of Detection (LoD)

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, 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.”

Konstantin Demeter
Konstantin Demeter
Feb 3, 2021 7:21 PM
Reply to  Paul

The definition given for “isolation” in the article is scientifically unprecise: “Isolating a virus means taking a pure sample of a virus from an infected being so it can be studied.” First you take a sample from the patient, then you purify the viral particles from that sample. Nevertheless, we know what the author means, and she is correct in saying that the viral particles have to be “pure”, meaning that no other particles have to be present. But in fact, the process described in the respective studies claiming isolation does not represent a complete isolation and purification. As proof of that, for example, in our previous article “COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless” we published the answers from the authors of several of the main studies claiming isolation, to our question “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, among them the answer by the main author of the paper “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Myung-Guk Han. This study is linked in your article as one of the proofs of isolation. Here is his answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

Paul Wilkins
Paul Wilkins
Feb 3, 2021 9:03 PM

Thank you for your reply Konstantin,

Firstly I must commend you on your article. You have obviously worked very hard on it.

I have read the article several times and although I am not in the medical profession at all, I was able to understand the essence of your article.

Although I can’t ‘fact check’ your article, I will take it as genuine, particularly as you have replied to me.

I live in the UK. Our governments response has been pretty diabolical. I make no efforts to defend them. However, one must look at the knowledge of science at given points in time of this pandemic. For example, Let’s take asymptomatic people and whether they can pass on the virus or not. I won’t doubt you are right that it hasn’t been scientifically proven either way. One hopes (any) government knows this. But if one does not know either way, then one can not criticise governments for doing the safer option. Same goes for the PCR tests?

I get peoples livelihoods/jobs/finances etc turned upside down caused by the ‘safer’ option should it be wrong. But one must take into account that (hopefully) the economy will recover, but lost lives can not be brought back.

Kind Regards
Paul

Torsten Engelbrecht
Torsten Engelbrecht
Feb 3, 2021 10:29 PM
Reply to  Paul Wilkins

Hi Paul!

This is Torsten, one of the authors of this article. Thank you for your friendly introduction, but you are definetely wrong in saying “if one does not know either way, then one can not criticise governments for doing the safer option.”

First, it is not correct if you say that “one does not know either way,” because we know that there is no proof for SARS-CoV-2. Second, if you have a hypothesis, you must proof that it is factually correct–especially if you do not have the proofs in your hands, which is especially the case with the SARS-CoV-2=COVID-19 hypothesis from the ground up. And then one cannot conclude, as you do, that the government is taking the “safer option”, because you are relying on a completely baseless hypothesis. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, because fact is only that by the political measures most brutal collateral damages are caused! This is the opposite of a “safe option.” Don’t you think that taking political measures based on a scientfically totally unfounded hypothesis and having dramatically harmful social consequences must be called insanity?

Imagine, the decision makers would do the same as they do now by claiming that they do not have any other choice because the devil came out of the hell and made millions of people sick and dying, wouldn’t you then also demand hard evidence from the government instead of approving of their actions and calling them a “safer option”? 😉

Kind regards, Torsten

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:46 PM

Thank you for your contributions.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:53 PM

If you would be so kind as to answer this question, even if vague or short (because I believe it is a huge issue, considering vitamin D’s overall effect, deficiency rates, policies exacerbating it), how absurd, damaging and incorrect is the UK’s policy regarding Vit D recommendation (of NOT recommending it)?

Keeping in mind of course the Rockefeller Institute Of Medicine (and parallel institutions worldwide) had based the RDA/RDI of Vitamin D on a level that is typically off by a factor of 5-20x, does not account for seasonality or the effect of melanin, as some examples of considered factors not considered?

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:56 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

“…considered factors not considered?”

I say that, of course, to emphasize how intentionally damaging policies are used regarding ignorance and demonizing of KNOWN efficacious, safe, essential and clearly implicated factors.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 11:58 PM
Reply to  Frank G L

You know, like when Donald Rumsfeld said “Known Known, Known Unknown, Unknown Unknown”

The astute might potentially notice omission there. Very convenient omission, you know, the unknown known?

That thing you know to be true, but you kinda ignore it coz you happen to be a lying sociopath.

Konstantin Demeter
Konstantin Demeter
Feb 3, 2021 10:51 PM
Reply to  Paul Wilkins

Thanks, Paul, I appreciate that you acknowledge our work behind this article. Re asymptomatic people and “whether they can pass on the virus or not”: even if it would be possible, to “pass on the virus” would just mean that they “pass” the positivity of the test. But what is actually relevant, is if asymptomatic people can make somebody sick, for which there is no proof, as stated in the article. If positive asymptomatic persons would pass on the “positivity” to other people, but nobody would get sick, and those people would pass on the positivity again, without anybody getting sick, and so on, then it is totally mad to mass test asymptomatic people and scare us daily with those numbers, regardless if the test actually finds viral sequences or something else.

Politicians may not know much about the science, but even if this is the case, they would have the responsibility not to listen exclusively to a few scientists with opinions that are in line with Big Pharma, while ignoring critical voices. And health authorities are mostly corrupt.

Yes, politicians are on the safe side if they play along, but not for society, for themselves..

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 11:13 PM
Reply to  Paul Wilkins

Since mortality rates are not higher than those recorded in annual flu, it seems unreasonable to destroy our economy. Since we KNOW TPTB are lying to us about so many covid-related facts, it is unwarranted to assume that their lockdown efforts are benevolent. Further, we know that the lockdown itself is killing people.

Paul
Paul
Feb 4, 2021 5:09 AM
Reply to  Paul Wilkins

It’s fair enough to have another point of view.

To address a few of your points.

Firstly it’s been a year into this now.
There has been ample time to prove the existence of this virus.

Have we ever heard any of the members of Sage address the concerns about the existence of this virus?

The government are fully aware a lot of people doubt its existence. They troll sites like this to gauge public opinion.

Has any member of Sage or any medical advisor to governments anywhere in the world explained PCR testing?

Even if we accept that the virus is real the PCR is being masqueraded worldwide as the gold standard diagnostic when it’s been proved it’s not.

The initial PCR test devised by Christian Drosten in Germany who designed the test in the absence of any virus has been torn to shreds upon peer review because it’s non specific, never validated, no positive or negative control, severe design error, poorly positioned primers and cross reacts with other viruses.

This test was used by 70% of countries worldwide.

This test I believe is still used in Germany.

As for the UK they now have different PCR testing in place with different gene targets.

This test has never been peer reviewed. The government has received many requests and FOI to release the SOP for the test and they have refused to release the information.
I find this extremely suspicious.
Wouldn’t you?

What we can say for sure is the test is not scientifically validated.

Then we come on to the cycle threshold of these tests. It’s scientifically proven that even if the test was validated the CT should not be more than 25/30 cycles.

The Lighthouse labs are running cycles of 40/45.

Any result over 30 is suspicious and over 35 is scientifically, medically and diagnostically meaningless.

PCR as finally admitted by the WHO is not a diagnostic and PCR should be used as an aid to support a clinical diagnosis as in the patients must have symptoms.
The CT threshold should be disclosed and then the patient should be retested before being declared a ‘case’.

None of this is happening. It’s scientific fraud no matter what way you look at it.

Testing healthy people with a non diagnostic test is fraudulent.

Can you imagine pre 2020 mass testing for fragments of influenza viruses and declaring anyone who tested positive with or without symptoms a flu case?
It’s ludicrous.

A ‘case’ or death being attributed to covid requires no clinical diagnosis.
Again a year on and we still don’t know how this disease is being clinically diagnosed in a hospital environment. How exactly does it differ from other respiratory diseases.
The evidence appears to suggest covid is being diagnosed on the basis of a positive PCR test that is not a diagnostic test.

The government keeps parroting that they are guided by the science. Again this is not true. They are not following the science or any science for that matter.

All countries and medical professionals are following the protocols laid down by the WHO as they are supposed to be the gold standard body for world health.

The medical advisers to the government have a severe conflict of interests as they have financial relationships to the pharmaceutical industry who will profit to the tune of billions of pounds of vaccines.

Pre 2020 the official guidance for dealing with a respiratory outbreak was for life to go on as normal, but to encourage hand washing and for medically vulnerable people to avoid large crowds.

The pseudoscience of 2020/21 has shut businesses, destroyed jobs, destroyed the economy, ruined kids education, seen a tsunami of mental health issues, thousands of missed cancer diagnosis and debt that will burdened upon future generations.

This is simply unacceptable on the basis of the paltry flimsy ‘science’ being peddled by the government.

The government and Sage have also been deliberately trying to scare people into complying with their rules.

They have simply plucked the rules out of thin air, labelled it science with no peer reviewed evidence and making it legally enforceable.
That’s called tyranny.

It’s not unacceptable and people are right to be angry.

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 11:05 PM

Konstantin, Shouldn’t the standard for purification be “the method of purification used in studying other viruses” rather than “an imagined (magical) purification that has never been achieved in studying ANY virus?”

Perhaps I am mistaken, and the imagined purification described is routinely achieved in viral studies. If so, kindly supply at least one link indicating real world achievement of such purification or isolation of ANY virus– or especially of any coronavirus.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 4, 2021 1:30 AM
Reply to  Penelope

“Konstantin, Shouldn’t the standard for purification be “the method of purification used in studying other viruses” rather than “an imagined (magical) purification that has never been achieved in studying ANY virus?”

Before you try “purify” something, shouldn’t you know its origin? Any alteration thus, is the origin. Big oopsie.

Also, their methodology and principles might outright be incorrect!

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 4, 2021 1:36 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

“Before you try “purify” something, shouldn’t you know its origin? Any alteration thus, is the origin. Big oopsie.”

When I say that, I don’t mean China, America, Congo or Sirius.

I mean, how viruses get to spawn by themselves.

Remember, two of the three main viral origin hypotheses suggests the following. “Recession” and “Escapism”. In terms of “Recession” it means breakage. Things like misfolded proteins, truncated sequences, mutated sequences, rejected toxic proteins.

In terms of “Escapism” it means identification, encapsulation, isolation, ejection or rejection.

So where do you think viruses come from, if you still get lung problems, pneumonia, despite not needing contact with say, someone who has flu, colds, etc?

Big oopsies.

jkb
jkb
Feb 4, 2021 5:03 PM
Reply to  Penelope

“Evidence covid virus does not exist”
Should you find and read the above article, you wouldn’t ask your questions above.

Paul Wilkins
Paul Wilkins
Feb 3, 2021 7:26 PM
Reply to  Paul

Who are these people that vote me down? Instead please provide details on where the fullfact.org article is wrong?

Regards
Paul

Konstantin Demeter
Konstantin Demeter
Feb 3, 2021 8:05 PM
Reply to  Paul Wilkins

I just provided them above.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Feb 3, 2021 7:52 PM
Reply to  Paul

Paul, you’ll not get any change out of most of the people on here with that link. I don’t agree with the thrust of the article either, but people here will believe it.

I’m a lockdown sceptic, not a virus sceptic – saying “stay safe” is red rag to a lockdown sceptic bull.

Some may feel that it is deliberate provocation and you will make no friends and win no converts with it.

Most people here will think you are trolling them.

Paul Wilkins
Paul Wilkins
Feb 3, 2021 9:12 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

Thanks you for your comments Jon. I share your frustrations!

However, the author has also taken the time to reply which must be applauded and I have replied as such.

Obviously feel free to read.

All the best.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 4, 2021 9:55 AM
Reply to  John Pretty

What makes you believe in the existence of SARS-CoV-2, John?

jkb
jkb
Feb 4, 2021 5:15 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Believe it or not, I’ve given my friends and cousins all the evidence that the virus was never proven to exist. They still believe it exists. Maybe guinness book or records will have covid in it?? Imo, their mind stopped thinking. They couldn’t think anymore.

jkb
jkb
Feb 4, 2021 5:11 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

What you said is that you haven’t studied all things covid, especially the virology side. Find the research papers on the covid virus and analyze it. Most people here don’t simply believe. They check and analyze. They think. It’s the reason I’m still here reading their comments.

alex
alex
Feb 3, 2021 10:21 AM

What does CCP gain by releasing a false virus to the world?

jkb
jkb
Feb 4, 2021 5:17 PM
Reply to  alex

Who said they did? Any evidence? And “false virus” is not a virus, therefore can’t be released. Lol.

David Meredith
David Meredith
Feb 4, 2021 9:22 PM
Reply to  alex

Significant influence over USA by having Biden as president. I don’t think the initial release was a false virus but was enough to kickstart world panic to such a level that anything from a sneeze to actual influenza and a whole slew of other comorbidity factors are now labelled as Covid-19.

alex
alex
Feb 4, 2021 10:34 PM
Reply to  alex

@jkb @david meredith
Maybe I have not expressed myself well, what does the CCP gain by announcing the existence of a virus that does not exist?

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 5:44 AM
Reply to  alex

Uhm, they’re a tyranny. They want a nicely homogenized drone society.

Control, financial gain.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 5:45 AM
Reply to  Frank G L

Aside from that, you have to think of that question in the context of EVERY other invented virus, regarding other countries, situations. Because it’s the same crap.

Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton
Feb 5, 2021 10:03 AM
Reply to  alex

For one thing, it helps them to control people. Have you seen the apps people in China now need to swipe to enter buildings, said to have something to do with fighting Covid?

DM:
DM:
Feb 3, 2021 8:11 AM
Bubba
Bubba
Feb 3, 2021 5:30 AM

All talk will do no good, unless willing to put own life on the line for what one believes!
If the below does happen, what will you do?
It is the answer to this question that will tell yourself what you really believe.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-weirdo-bill-gates-calls-for-global-alert-system-ahead-of-next-pandemic/
Make no mistake, he is talking FORCE against the non-conforming ones!
Because this other one is also real!
https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-cult-and-the-10-stages-of-genocide/

DM:
DM:
Feb 3, 2021 8:18 AM
Reply to  Bubba

I think plenty of people will be willing to put their life on the line. At an appropriate juncture.

This will not stand. There will be no Bill Gates dynasty.

Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 5, 2021 5:47 AM
Reply to  DM:

Personally, I’m saying the path to the grave is straight as an arrow. I would rather not exist than continue in this world, if this is the world’s direction and I mean that with absolute sincerity.

MaryLS
MaryLS
Feb 3, 2021 4:33 AM
Bubba
Bubba
Feb 3, 2021 3:58 AM

Pretty soon, the AI Singularity will restrict the internet access and use based on line-toeing.
Sites like this will be obliterated.
No more opinions that contravene the central diktat.
Have at it while you can!
————————-
It’s a bulldozer leveling all things!
Nobody can stand in its way!
The intellectually lazy – worshipping the pronouncements of “science” (in which most individuals have economic stakes!), and the orders of the “caring, loving” governments – are the aid and enablers, though having nothing to gain!
Among other things, they accept genetics and virology as facts.
If DNA and RNA had been autonomous, the deleterious viruses should have been ubiquitous in nature and life would have come to a still.
Why only few of them go ROGUE?!
They have “codes”, and they can do anything they want!
They are insiders, so they know how to trigger havoc in the rest of the nature.
Ask the “scientists” to show all those mechanisms and processes!
Especially when the ROGUES are not plugged in – just like a laptop without any source of energy: no battery, no EM waves, etc.
————————-
But the inane bow and obey.
Later, they will cheerfully gobble the cognitive-enhancement drugs!

World News
3 May 2030 09.30 ET
Drumhum Inc leads the pack in the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs in the workplace as
companies begin to realise their benefits.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/people-organisation/publications/workforce-of-the-future.html

Meanwhile:
Gates proclaims “We also need new capabilities, including a global alert system and infectious disease first responders, or what I like to call a pandemic fire squad.”
https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-weirdo-bill-gates-calls-for-global-alert-system-ahead-of-next-pandemic/

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 3:47 AM

If other viruses, or especially other CORONA viruses have met the perfectly controlled isolation criteria which skeptics demand of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, please indicate where we can verify this. Give us a link.

It is obvious that the PCR is completely fraudulent above 30 cycles, that face masks are a harmful psychological ap, and that it is the fell intention of TPTB to bring down the economies of the developed world in order to bring in a murderous and tyrannical system. It is obvious that the actual numbers of covid are much smaller than the fictionalized accounts.

All of this having been said, it is not helpful to “dream up” a set of criteria by which to impeach the existence of the virus unless one is able to demonstrate that OTHER VIRUSES have met these exaggerated criteria. Here is a link describing some of the difficulties in viral research. It has no connection to SARS-Cov-2 but is background which I think helps to inoculate one against pie-in-the-sky criteria. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182102/

DM:
DM:
Feb 3, 2021 5:56 AM
Reply to  Penelope

Thank you for that link.

Koch’s postulates to identify the causative agent of an infectious disease.

  • • The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms*
  • • The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture
  • • The microorganism (from the pure culture) should cause disease when inoculated into a healthy organism
  • • The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent

*Koch dismissed the universal requirement of the first postulate following the discovery of asymptomatic carriers of diseases such as cholera.

Seems though, that Koch refers only to microorganisms, but the literature then conflates microorganisms with viruses which are not the same thing.

To my mind, virology itself now needs to be put under a microscope.

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 8:27 AM
Reply to  DM:

DM, Thanks for a civil response.

Koch’s Postulates were for BACTERIA. Viruses had only BEGUN to be understood. Doubtless, virology is not so well understood as bacteria are. It seems to me foolishness to insist that a particular virus needs to be isolated and purified unless that is the standard for ALL viruses.

It seems to me that covid skeptics are merely saying the following:

“I don’t LIKE the way virology is done & I would prefer that they “somehow” (magical thinking) isolate and purify and convincingly electron-photograph each one. And if they can’t do that, then I disbelieve in the whole field. Despite all our everyday experience that colds, flu & measles are contagious (transmitted by an infectious agent) I don’t believe it. I refuse to believe it because the field of virology has failed to live up to the standard of rigorous scientific proof which I insist is possible. Although I have no idea how they would do this it is my fantasy that virology OUGHT to be able to function in the way I imagine.”

Please, please understand that I am not a virologist, and IF indeed virologists meet the desired standards with other viruses– including corona viruses– THEN we’ve got reason for skepticism about the existence of SARS-CoV-2.

I have not made a lot of effort to find out; I think that the onus should be on the skeptics to demonstrate that this virus is not being authenticated in the manner that others are.

My particular skepticism on the issue is that a flat-earth-type distraction may have been sneaked in on you. In every serious Intelligence operation against the people in my lifetime a similar method of fragmenting & discrediting those awake to the conspiracy has been used. It was used in the JFK assassination & in 9-11 & in the global warming hoax.

Ooink
Ooink
Feb 3, 2021 12:05 PM
Reply to  Penelope

If anything has been sneaked in it was sneaked in on Gov, institutions and authorities first, Penelope. So, it’s a self-con the whole way down.

Researcher
Researcher
Feb 3, 2021 5:23 PM
Reply to  Penelope

No viruses have been isolated and purified. Definitely no Coronaviruses.

Viruses are constructs and virologists and biologists who claim they exist have not proven so by any solid scientific metric. More importantly, virologists have failed to show that the alleged microbes are the cause of a disease.

Nor has any contagion ever been shown or proven.

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 11:37 PM
Reply to  Researcher

Researcher, it may very well be the case that “No viruses have been isolated and purified.” But surely you don’t doubt that there is SOME physical agent responsible for the contagion of measles or the flu? People who are working in this field label those physical agents “viruses”. Their methods of studying them are the current state-of-the-art. I have not seen any comment in the article or following it indicating that ANY OF you know how to achieve this magical “isolation/purification”. There was a time when we could not separate red blood cells from whole blood. Does that mean that they didn’t exist until we succeeded in isolating them? There was a time when we could not isolate the various B-vitamins from their sources, and from each other. But they existed nevertheless.

Is it possible that we are mistaken in some aspects about the exact nature of viruses. Of course. Science advances through hypothesis & theory.

Researcher
Researcher
Feb 4, 2021 2:30 AM
Reply to  Penelope

The US army and the Rockefeller medical cartel figured out after the 1918 flu that there was no contagion.

No contagion has ever been shown in any experiment. They tried. They could not make a single person sick from another person. Not through their spit, their breath, their mucous or sputum. Not through any method. And measles, specifically has been debunked by Stefan Lanka. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in Germany.

Virologists cannot claim something exists purely on belief without evidence. That’s fantasy not science. If contagion has been ruled out, then the cause of all these illnesses is something else entirely. Not a microbe that can’t ever be found. It’s basic logic, Penelope.

Why haven’t scientists and doctors looked for another cause? Because germ theory allowed them to sell billions of profits from vaccines and harm millions. They cleaned up on the front and back end of the scam in a circular economic model for PhRMA. And governments got to manage populations with another tool in the toolbox: The fear of contagion.

In fact, what were once considered contagious diseases such as scurvy and beriberi were just vitamin deficiencies. That’s what flus and colds are. Seasonal Vitamin D deficiency. Measles is thought to possibly be Vitamin A deficiency.

There are no molecules on earth that can’t be isolated, characterized and analyzed through a number of methods. The methods have existed for decades to filter, isolate and purify these particles through centrifuge, then characterize, analyze and validate them using methods such as Electron microscopy (EM) Cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM), Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI – TOF MS), Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and Crystallography. 

What virologists have been falsely labeling viruses are a construct from endogenous cell constituents such as exosomes, RNA, DNA micro-vesicles, cell debris, enzymes, lipids, bacteria and proteins.

Scientists would have to prove that a microbe or particle exists before they can claim it’s real. After that, they have to prove it is the cause of a disease or illness.

That was never done, which many doctors, scientists, journalists and researchers have now discovered.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 3, 2021 6:38 AM
Reply to  Penelope

I don’t think it’s a question of “dreaming up” a set of criteria. Obviously, to be sure that you have isolated a virus certain things must be done and claims of isolation where it can be shown that there is no clear evidence of isolation simply mean the claim is false. If it can be shown that absolute purification isn’t necessary for the required purpose then that is another matter but that lack of necessity must be shown.

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 11:43 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

No, Petra, it must be established that it is POSSIBLE to meet this magical standard of purification/isolation. These are TINY particles. If you know that they can be isolated, kindly supply a link to such a successful achievement. Merely to say “It’s necessary” doesn’t make it achievable at our present state of knowledge.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 4, 2021 5:49 AM
Reply to  Penelope

That is an interesting point, Penelope. Has it ever been done and is it possible? The thing is if it isn’t possible and hasn’t been done perhaps viruses can only be identified using other methods, eg:
— distinctive set of symptoms
— distinctive antibodies produced in response

If you’re going to test for a virus where distinctive antibodies are not produced then perhaps it is necessary to purify the virus and if it can’t be done well that’s it. Without a distinctive set of symptoms or specific antibodies that’s the end of it, a virus simply cannot be identified. Of course, I know nothing about it but it’s a good question.

The thing is if it’s not possible to purify a virus why are science teams claiming they’ve done it? And the assumption for the efficacy of the PCR test is that the virus HAS been purified. If it hasn’t been purified (regardless of whether it’s possible or not) then right there we have scientific fraud and if we have scientific fraud why should we believe any part of the story without clear evidence?

Paul Swanson
Paul Swanson
Feb 5, 2021 6:55 PM
Reply to  Penelope

it must be established that it is POSSIBLE to meet this magical standard of purification/isolation.”

That’s been done long ago Penelope:

If an alleged “infectious particle” commonly called a “virus” actually existed then it would be easily possible to purify it (an essential prerequisite for proving any claim relating to the same).

This we are told by Dr. Stefan Lanka, the first man to ever purify what was considered a virus (in a marine environment). See the attached paper.

He then proceeded to go looking for the “viruses” alleged to harm humans and found:

1) that he couldn’t find them himself.

2) No one before him (or since) has ever purified any such “virus” and shown it to cause (by itself) certain symptoms in humans or animals, therefore rendering all claims related to them as at best wholly unfounded and at worst, outright scientific fraud.

http://agenda-leben.de/Lanka_Ectocarpus_siliculosus.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2mT7XcSTKGQgppuN0nk0FhySKfeuPRZKSqQ8uIqiU_RxZhjfpmuP6PETk

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 5, 2021 6:57 PM
Reply to  Penelope

You can’t say it’s ‘TINY particle’ before it’s even proven to exist!

falcemartello
falcemartello
Feb 3, 2021 12:30 AM

Hers another article breaking down the wall Boy Humpty Dumpty
https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-digital-theoretical-virus/

falcemartello
falcemartello
Feb 2, 2021 11:01 PM

As per usual
@Researcher on this blog
You have been vindicated in spades and I have alluded to you in the past Most people do not haver medical or scientific background to discern any information with regards to this scamdemic.
Hence this article explains scintifically what its all abouit and calls out the scam for what it is.
I am releashing the moment when all this dystopian Orwellian hell hole gets fully expopsed via the various tribunals around the NATO world and as they say in the leghal fraternity full discovery and disclosure is tabled on the Judges tables.,.
Oh my sweet Jesus
POst Scriptum : Since most of the Nato countries have all started to admit to the flaws of PCR testting in mid Jan the whole narrative is starting to crumble.
Docius In Fondum:Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall and boy that wall is collapsing.

Ben
Ben
Feb 2, 2021 10:34 PM

.
They really think we’re stupid
.comment image

David Meredith
David Meredith
Feb 2, 2021 11:12 PM
Reply to  Ben

Covid is the cure for seasonal flu, did you not know about this? Covid has made a lot of other illnesses and causes of death also disappear.

Oscar
Oscar
Feb 14, 2021 12:15 PM
Reply to  Kalen

That link now appears to be dead.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 3, 2021 6:39 AM
Reply to  David Meredith

Love it!

falcemartello
falcemartello
Feb 3, 2021 11:40 AM
Reply to  David Meredith

It also cures my baldness.It also brings World peace ,curescancer, and heamroids.fascism and bad sex

falcemartello
falcemartello
Feb 3, 2021 12:12 AM
Reply to  Ben

Yep and I had sex with the tooth fairy

LesMore
LesMore
Feb 2, 2021 8:06 PM

Hi, can I have a question? Why many of you think that the virus was not isolated? There are multiple places on the internet saying that indeed it was isolated early (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/). Please explain. And no, I am not trolling. I am curious what I am missing.

Tom
Tom
Feb 2, 2021 9:42 PM
Reply to  LesMore

‘In silico’.

Paul
Paul
Feb 2, 2021 11:45 PM
Reply to  LesMore

Fair question. I thought this myself for a while.

But there’s a huge difference between saying you have isolated the virus and proving you’ve actually done it by demonstrating gold standard isolation.

They are snake oil con men and they are preying on people not knowing the difference.

Toby Russell
Toby Russell
Feb 3, 2021 5:37 AM
Reply to  Paul

I translated a couple of articles by a German group called Corona_Fakten that set out how virology’s use of ‘isolation’ is not how the rest of science understands that term. Perhaps they will make matters a little clearer for you. There’s also a discussion between Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman that clarifies this oddity nicely.

Paul
Paul
Feb 3, 2021 8:54 AM
Reply to  Toby Russell

Thanks. Great reads. Thanks for sharing.

Mucho
Mucho
Feb 3, 2021 3:44 PM
Reply to  Paul

Does the original post not show a proper isolation though?

Paul
Paul
Feb 3, 2021 5:14 PM
Reply to  Mucho

It’s not proper isolation.

If you read the commenter above, Toby Russell.

He explains it well.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Feb 3, 2021 6:41 AM
Reply to  LesMore
Frank G L
Frank G L
Feb 3, 2021 7:52 PM
Reply to  LesMore

fda.gov/media/134922

On version 06 on page 42 (with version 05 the same text was on page 39):

Performance Characteristics
Analytical Performance:
Limit of Detection (LoD)

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use
at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, 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.

They made shit up based on synthesized garbage given to them from their script from China (not that it originated in China, necessarily) btw, just as before (which is why the CDC has patents on coronaviruses, tests, vaccines etc. Apparently Fauci, relating to Moderna too).

So then, based on what is already false, fraudulent, synthesized they then alter it even some more to conveniently demonize your body, to hijack protein production, btw, which is a target of the degenerating mRNA vaccine.

THEN, they use that test to “FIND THE REAL THING”, based on their suggestion, which happens to only identify a small part of the supposed virus, is easily conflated. Seems very legit

It’s circular, based on a fraudulent premise and that is without me even having to say that “viruses” are not and do not function like they say.

The mRNA vaccine (and others) are as close to a real “virus” as you are going to get, as it FORCES the body, hijacking and diverting it, to produce broken/toxic/”viral” proteins unnecessarily. And it is contagious in the sense that idiots believe vaccines are beneficial. They are all toxic garbage.

mikael
mikael
Feb 2, 2021 7:12 PM

Ah….. I looove how some people like this Penelope manages to ignore the entire aritcle, and comes up with the usualy uh…. argument about Beware of Flat earth eh….. patriots, right, Penelope.
An old trick, like we all are domestic terrorists because we dont belive anything they tell us about this so called virus and if your tiny brain even managed to stay focused long enough to actualy survive the entire article this questions are answered, but as many other uh…. debunkers? you simply ignore facts, and drags in FE, as an good old fasion ad homeniem, pathetic indeed.
Portugal, said that to this date there is no prof, of anything, and if cycles are the issue, how come, when the initial RNA whatever sequence is already known, as the CDC etc claims it is, the same base par that is exactly the same as Cromosone 8 witch of course you would denie because you didnt bother to read the entire article, and this sequence witch they claim represents CONvid, is 16 amino acids, and if you then think an average organice whatever have from 30 000 to lord knows, how many things/places could this sequence be mached up against, that math, Penelope I would leave to you, I dont bother because I already know its total bollocks.

And then the virus, witch again, if you bothered to read says it all, again, you claim that this questions are relevant, they are not, this comes because you dont either want to understand witch is perfectly normal among people whom dont have the IQ to read anything because of your inability to comprehend.
Its simply dont exists, they have not come up with one single evidence, period, read the article and you will hopefuly understand.

Viruses dont travel anywhere, thats the case, because, virus, like dark matter, big bangs are scientifical frauds, and nothing else but fraud, again, you didnt bother to read and we end up with something that might impress somebody even dumber that what you are, I am not sure why, congitive dissonace, maybe, or simply as many people, incl some with Phd is simply not able despite their cocksure idolising of been educated, witch is more like what I define as idiot savants, cant grasp what ever they read because of this contradictions of what they think is facts, and even when its glaringly obvious that there is no facts to back any of this claims, you ignore that completely.
But then again, I am not surprised at all.
Its not the first time I encounter this level of denile, its more comon that what you think it is, in an wide range of topics. incl science, in this days where 2+2=4 is racism.

peace

Tommy Hutchinson
Tommy Hutchinson
Feb 5, 2021 7:00 PM
Reply to  mikael

Yep, a lot of trolls, shills etc. on here now…

Oscar
Oscar
Feb 14, 2021 12:41 PM

But still plenty of rational people. Trolls will invade all spaces, its part of the plan to debunk the truth.

Christine Massey
Christine Massey
Feb 2, 2021 6:59 PM

Fantastic work, thank you gentlemen for this brilliant expose!! Sharing widely!!

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 2, 2021 5:57 PM

–Can anyone tell me whether it is the usual case– with other viruses– that it CAN by isolated & purified?
–Portugal indicated that it would not accept greater-than-30 cycle PCR results because the material from those swabs could not be cultured. Those from 30 cycles or fewer COULD be cultured in the case of those tests that were positive.
–I believe that in the study of BACTERIA the procedure the author describes is carried out. But is it carried out in the case of viruses? Of other CORONA viruses?
–If the only explanation for failure to isolate is “Viruses exist only inside our cells,” then in what form do they travel from an infected person to a new host?

I’m sorry that I can only ask questions. One caveat: Beware of flat-earth epistemology. Merely because its proponents were unable to answer every reservation or question about planetary cosmology, they jumped to the conclusion that it must be false in its entirety.

Vasco da Gama
Vasco da Gama
Feb 2, 2021 7:26 PM
Reply to  Penelope

In Portugal PCR amplification cycles (Ct) are not reported in the test. My physician had no idea when I mentioned it either, the lab refused any response on either the Ct positivity criteria or on genes probed. No test that I had seen or asked about had the Ct level reported. No confirmed COVID diagnostic as been issued by a physician that I know of, that includes my own which stated “bacterial pneumonia” in my work leave. What the Portuguese court mentioned is that diagnosis is an exclusive medical act, and no lab statement or alternate authority can replace it for any action under Portuguese Constitutional law.

Toby Russell
Toby Russell
Feb 3, 2021 5:43 AM
Reply to  Penelope

https://lbry.tv/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/Judy–Tom-C-1-28-21-edited-compressed1:6?r=3rJ2XEgd17VS4J2f2bkX2J3nrXAeXCT9

Several answers in the discussion between Kaufman and Cowan linked to above. But yes, this matter needs to be further discussed in a properly scientific – impartial, honest, fact-based – manner. Right now virologists seem unwilling to engage. There are and have been for a long time several invitations and even financial rewards offered to anyone who can demonstrate the existence of viruses and also to carry out paid-for control experiments that would shed much more light on whether the particles virology claims are viruses are in fact pathogenic.

Penelope
Penelope
Feb 3, 2021 8:42 AM
Reply to  Toby Russell

Toby, I understand your longing for scientific rigor. I am not a virologist & cannot give it to you nor tell you why virologists cannot. I would guess that it’s a field still in its infancy. However, we know by experience that colds, flu, mumps, etc are contagious. Therefore I am sure that you will join me in believing that there is some physical agent that accounts for it. Lots of things start out as theories and cannot be demonstrated and are partially or wholly contradicted later. But SOMETHING causes physical contagion & for the moment we are calling it viruses and virologists are theorizing about them. This is typically how science progresses, no?

jkb
jkb
Feb 3, 2021 1:52 PM
Reply to  Penelope

Sorry Penelope, beliefs have no place in science.
Stefan Lanka said that pathogenic viruses have no scientific evidence. About the other coronaviruses, the article “evidence covid virus does not exist” explains it. Let’s just hope you read “that much longer and more detailed than the above” article. Lol

Researcher
Researcher
Feb 3, 2021 5:19 PM
Reply to  Penelope

No. We do not “know by experience that colds, flus, mumps etc are contagious.”

You are making erroneous statements based on consensus and epidemiological coincidence, not evidence.

You either want to write about facts which is something that has been been proven, not inferred, deduced or assumed or you want to write fiction such as the comment I just responded to with your false assertion.

No virus has ever been isolated and purified and shown to the be the cause of a disease. Not even a single Coronavirus.

And contagion has not been shown or proven in any experiment or study.

Researcher
Researcher
Feb 3, 2021 5:31 PM
Reply to  Penelope

Infancy? It’s been around more than a century. It’s pure fiction. It’s a fraud. A scam. A hoax. Why? To sell vaccines, harm populations, control populations and profit from the creation of secondary and long term illness and disease. It’s racketeering.

Tsubion
Tsubion
Feb 3, 2021 9:47 PM
Reply to  Penelope

However, we know by experience that colds, flu, mumps, etc are contagious.

Prove it.

But SOMETHING causes physical contagion

Again. Prove it.

Read The Contagion Myth by Thomas Cowan

Oscar
Oscar
Feb 14, 2021 12:45 PM
Reply to  Penelope

Are you referring to ‘anecdotal’ evidence.

Derek
Derek
Feb 2, 2021 4:40 PM

Brilliant article. Many thanks.
One to compliment it, an interview between Dr. Bhakdi & Willem Engel: