Jump to content

Has the virus been isolated and does it exist?


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Manuel P. said:

Then what about the images representing Sars-Cov-2 in for example these images

 

I was asking the exact same question yesterday, but I am unsure.

In one document published I think in Aug 2020, the CDC said that they had no virus isolates.

Many of these images do not show where they come from, which study who did it with what equipment and where.

The internet just copies ... but who made these images.

 

This is a very interesting scientific paper from May 2020  which says that the scientists themselves had seen photos that were phoney and the study seems to say that nobody has any images of it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7237172/

 

Nevertheless human coronaviruses are pretty common, there are many.

 

Last year I was looking for photos of the planets ... it took me a long time realise that most of the photos were composite and not actual photos ... they were made by a computer stitiching together other images, often visual images plus radio images ... even on the NASA website.  It was not easy to find an actual photo of all the planets ... that were not modified by computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thank you for pointing this out but it hasn't escaped our attention that the alleged genomic sequence of the alleged new pathogen – 2019-nCoV / SARS-CoV-2 – has supposedly been identified and is avail

Indeed, the reports claiming isolation have very little in the way of detail, and expect the reader to trust the word of "reputable" organisations.  I'm with Kaufmann on this one.

I've isolated it this evening using Photoshop.  

Posted Images

Well, in the link I posted appears:
 NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana, produced images of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, previously known as 2019-nCoV) on its scanning and transmission electron microscopes on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020. 

... although before May 2020 ... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Manuel P. said:

Well, in the link I posted appears:
 NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana, produced images of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, previously known as 2019-nCoV) on its scanning and transmission electron microscopes on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020. 

... although before May 2020 ... 

 

 

That is not a peered review or published study.

It is a "blog" .. so it's meaningless and untrustwrothy.

In the blog it says it looks like Mers which sounds fishy to me.

Maybe it is Mers.

I don't trust any of these fuckers.

A published paper is what you are looking for, perhaps if you are interested look around for electron microscope papers for sarscov2.

Edited by rideforever
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 10:03 PM, Pre-Raphaelite said:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST DEMONSTRATES THAT COVID-19 VIRUS NOT FOUND TO EXIST:-

 

https://video.parler.com/o8/z2/o8z2fEWsoKOe.mp4?fbclid=IwAR28nbUCO7-cQuE_Hr0ZB31tHr37b5pKaOh-CZtK_4Y0XKK1-pTeqzCu7Hw

 

Parler is down...

 

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/11/parler-hacked-as-attackers-claim-access-to-user-messages-and-locations-13885155/

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

 

Really :0)

Link please.. 

BC 

Maybe they mean the computer generated sequence released by China almost a year ago.

All the vaccines are based on this computer model and NOT one that has been taken from an actual infected person. That doesn't exist.

Anyhow this is my limited understanding at this moment so hopefully someone can correct me if i've got that wrong.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pat said:

Meanwhile the genome sequence is available online.....

Thank you for pointing this out but it hasn't escaped our attention that the alleged genomic sequence of the alleged new pathogen – 2019-nCoV / SARS-CoV-2 – has supposedly been identified and is available online.

 

Perhaps you may like to comment further on how this genomic sequencing has come about and as to whether, and more importantly how and why, you are satisfied that the alleged new pathogen has indeed been adequately isolated. The sequencing of the genome surely requires adequate isolation of the “virus” first?

 

The authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, which sets out the protocol for PCR testing, admit that the PCR test was designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV – an allegedly similar virus from 2003:

 

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

 

Quote

the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

 

Please note the admission that there are no specimens taken from infected patients – these are conspicuously absent. So it seems as though some massive assumptions have been made using the inferred “close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV” and then computer generating the supposed 2019-nCoV genomic sequence from there. How could it be known that 2019-nCoV has a close genetic relatedness to 2003 SARS-CoV without first having virus isolates from original patient specimens?

 

As Jon Rappoport has pointed out:

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/13/yet-another-case-of-the-missing-virus-they-lied-and-locked-down-the-world/

 

Quote

TRANSLATION: We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new COVID virus. We ASSUME this new virus is closely related to an older coronavirus. We ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because we don’t have the new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are made out of nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new coronavirus.”

 

FOI requests to various institutions across the world all fail to confirm that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated without first combining a patient sample with other genetic material.

 

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

 

The CDC PCR test guidance also confirms this – see page 39:

 

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

  • Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for the detection of the 2019 n-CoV RNA were tested with characterised stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA of known titer spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium to mimic clinical specimen.”

 

Furthermore, Fran Leader has also received confirmation from MHRA that “the DNA template used does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person.”

 

https://hive.blog/worldnews/@francesleader/email-exchange-with-uk-mhra-exposing-the-genomic-sequence-of-sarscov2

 

image.png.02c49fb13af85bfdea528e30b2837d84.png

image.png.85a1fb8976fa18d768457794ca6c86fb.png

In light of the above, can you comment on whether you are satisfied that 2019-nCoV has been adequately isolated and, if so, why?

 

Can you explain why you are happy for the use of computer generated genomic sequencing in the absence of actual viral isolates from an infected patient?

 

Would you not, from a common sense perspective, prefer an actual properly isolated sample from an infected patient?

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, mike hunt said:

Has any virus ever been isolated? Flu, Chicken pox, herpes?

Or in animals - rabies, foot and mouth.

 

Have any of these ever been isolated according to Koch's postulates?

 

I do not believe so - not according to Koch's postulates.

 

My understanding of Koch's postulates are that these were the original “gold standard” criteria for identifying a micro-organism as the cause of disease. But Koch's postulates were problematic, particularly for viruses, which meant that the postulates were modified by Thomas Rivers in 1937. Koch's postulates are thought by mainstream scientists to be more relevant for bacteria rather than viruses, with Rivers' postulates then becoming the test for viral causes of disease.

 

According to Thomas Cowan in his book 'The Contagion Myth', with Rivers' postulates, Koch’s first postulate was dropped “because many people suffering from 'viral' illness do not harbor the offending micro-organism. Even with Koch’s first postulate missing, researchers have not been able to prove that a specific virus causes a specific disease using Rivers’ postulates; one study claims that Rivers’ postulates have been met for SARS, said to be a viral disease, but careful examination of this paper demonstrates that none of the postulates have been satisfied.”

 

In 1996, this paper (linked below) was produced which called for a reconsideration of Koch's postulates. It is this paper that I understand is relied on by scientists who dispute that Koch's postulates (or even Rivers' postulates) are the gold standard for proving the existence of microbial pathogens.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14534757_Fredricks_D_N_Relman_D_A_Sequence-based_identification_of_microbial_pathogens_A_reconsideration_of_Koch's_postulates_Clin_Microbiol_Rev_9_18-33

 

The paper openly acknowledges that Koch's postulates cannot be used for viruses because it is not possible to isolate a virus from other genetic material – a virus cannot be grown alone in cell free culture. The paper suggests that the criteria for identifying a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease should therefore be revised using “sequence-based microbial identification”.

 

I think this therefore answers your question about whether a virus has ever fulfilled Koch's postulates.

 

On a separate note and to add to my post of 18th January above, one of the suggested criteria in this paper for using "sequence-based microbial identification" is for “fewer, or no, copy numbers of pathogen-associated nu-cleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease". I understand this to mean that, in order to establish a causal relationship between a "virus" and a disease, people who are well and not displaying symptoms should generally not test positive for a “virus” using “sequence-based microbial identification” - at least not in the great numbers we are seeing with SARS-CoV-2 (credit to Dr Sam Bailey for pointing this out in the video below).

 

So, whichever way you look at it – whether you use Koch's postulates, Rivers' postulates or Fredricks & Relman's “sequence based identification” - SARS-CoV-2 fails all sets of criteria posited for showing that the so-called organism causes the disease Covid-19.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mitochondrial Eve
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

I do not believe so - not according to Koch's postulates.

 

My understanding of Koch's postulates are that these were the original “gold standard” criteria for identifying a micro-organism as the cause of disease. But Koch's postulates were problematic, particularly for viruses, which meant that the postulates were modified by Thomas Rivers in 1937. Koch's postulates are thought by mainstream scientists to be more relevant for bacteria rather than viruses, with Rivers' postulates then becoming the test for viral causes of disease.

 

According to Thomas Cowan in his book 'The Contagion Myth', with Rivers' postulates, Koch’s first postulate was dropped “because many people suffering from 'viral' illness do not harbor the offending micro-organism. Even with Koch’s first postulate missing, researchers have not been able to prove that a specific virus causes a specific disease using Rivers’ postulates; one study claims that Rivers’ postulates have been met for SARS, said to be a viral disease, but careful examination of this paper demonstrates that none of the postulates have been satisfied.”

 

In 1996, this paper (linked below) was produced which called for a reconsideration of Koch's postulates. It is this paper that I understand is relied on by scientists who dispute that Koch's postulates (or even Rivers' postulates) are the gold standard for proving the existence of microbial pathogens.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14534757_Fredricks_D_N_Relman_D_A_Sequence-based_identification_of_microbial_pathogens_A_reconsideration_of_Koch's_postulates_Clin_Microbiol_Rev_9_18-33

 

The paper openly acknowledges that Koch's postulates cannot be used for viruses because it is not possible to isolate a virus from other genetic material – a virus cannot be grown alone in cell free culture. The paper suggests that the criteria for identifying a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease should therefore be revised using “sequence-based microbial identification”.

 

I think this therefore answers your question about whether a virus has ever fulfilled Koch's postulates.

 

On a separate note and to add to my post of 18th January above, one of the suggested criteria in this paper for using "sequence-based microbial identification" is for “fewer, or no, copy numbers of pathogen-associated nu-cleic acid sequences should occur in hosts or tissues without disease". I understand this to mean that, in order to establish a causal relationship between a "virus" and a disease, people who are well and not displaying symptoms should generally not test positive for a “virus” using “sequence-based microbial identification” - at least not in the great numbers we are seeing with SARS-CoV-2 (credit to Dr Sam Bailey for pointing this out in the video below).

 

So, whichever way you look at it – whether you use Koch's postulates, Rivers' postulates or Fredricks & Relman's “sequence based identification” - SARS-CoV-2 fails all sets of criteria posited for showing that the so-called organism causes the disease Covid-19.

 

 

 

 

 

So when chicken pox ran through my kids. Was that a virus? Because I assume it wasnt isolated according to Koch.

 

I think we need to revisit all these viruses if we go by Koch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2020 at 12:15 PM, MaryCochrane said:

I believe that the covid virus has not been isolated listening to David and I was busy letting people know it wasn't iscolated and someone sent me this link. Can anyone tell me if its reliable? Thanks 

https://sunnybrook.ca/research/media/item.asp?c=2&i=2069&f=covid-19-isolated-2020&fbclid=IwAR21EAOY3aU_dKGXdNpujJLU0pg4jUUpC2gUGfrM8BN2laTm4c4bl-NCg1Y#.XmsmoGqClHs.twitter

 

 Dr Andrew Kaufman covered them among others about a month after they gained media attention. 

Dr Kaufmans findings however found no mainstream media attention

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Medical Students are trained in such a robotic fashion today that ... they don't understand what isolation means.  Neither what pandemic means.   They are educated to see whatever they are taught to see ... and repeating things without their own thinking is called "thinking-for-yourself".

The entire education system is like that these days.

 

Dr Bailey has co-authored a new book "Virus Mania" that has some chapters dealing with the lack of isolation of viruses including Covid, Meningitis C, HIV.   Ebook coming soon.

You can get it at BookDepository for £30.

 

And Dr Bailey's latest youtube is here:
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iain Davis has written a piece for UK Column asking 'Is Covid-19 A Hoax?'. I won't quote the entire article but I think the parts about the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and, before it, SARS-CoV-1 are worth a mention on this thread.

 

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid-19-hoax

 

Again, Has SARS-Cov-2 Been Isolated?

It wasn't critics of the COVID-19 narrative who started the debate about claimed "isolation." Following the World Health Organisation's (WHO's) classification of COVID-19 (2019-nCoV renamed Coronavirus Disease 2019), their laboratory testing guidance said:

 

Quote

The etiologic agent [causation for the disease] responsible for the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan has been identified as a novel betacoronavirus, (in the same family as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) via next generation sequencing (NGS) from cultured virus or directly from samples received from several pneumonia patients.

 

In the WHO's Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1, they noted:

 

Quote

The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020……On 12 January 2020, China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.

 

The WHO were claiming that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had been isolated and they gave the impression that genetic sequences were identified from the isolated sample. Diagnostic kits were subsequently calibrated to test for this virus and distributed globally. However, the WHO also stated:

 

Quote

Working directly from sequence information, the team developed a series of genetic amplification (PCR) assays used by laboratories.

 

The Wuhan scientists developed their genetic amplification assays from "sequence information" not from an isolated sample of any virus. The WHO cited their work as proof of isolation. Yet it was the Wuhan research scientists themselves who stated:

 

Quote

The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch's postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.

 

They had pieced the SARS-CoV-2 genome together by matching fragments (nucleotide sequences) with other, previously discovered, genetic sequences. Using de novo assembly, they subsequently employed quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) to sequence 29,891-base-pair (bp) that collectively shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV. As they found more than 29,000 bp the genome was considered complete.

 

SARS-CoV (SARS-CoV-1) was discovered in 2003 in Hong Kong by scientists who studied 50 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). They took samples from two of these patients and developed thirty cloned cultures in fetal monkey liver cells. Analysis revealed that there was genetic material of "unknown origin" in one of these thirty cloned samples.

 

The Hong Kong team examined this unknown material and found a 57% match to bovine coronavirus and murine hepatitis virus. They concluded it must be from the Coronaviridae family. The researchers stated:

 

Quote

Primers for detecting the new virus were designed for RT-PCR detection of this human pneumonia-associated coronavirus genome in clinical samples. Of the 44 nasopharyngeal samples available from the 50 SARS patients, 22 had evidence of human pneumonia-associated coronavirus RNA.

 

While all of the Hong Kong patients were diagnosed with symptoms of SARS only half of them tested positive for the SARS-CoV-1 virus. To date, we don't know why the other half didn't.

 

With a 57% sequence match to known coronavirus, 43% of the genetic material in SARS-CoV-1 was unaccounted for. The new genome was then registered as GenBank Accession No. AY274119.

 

The Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre published the SARS-CoV-2 genome as Genbank Accession No. MN908947.1. It was a 79.6% genetic sequence match to a 57% genetic sequence match of a suspected betacoronavirus found in one of thirty cloned samples taken from two patients in Hong Kong in 2003.

 

This was the basis for the WHO's claim that SARS-CoV-2 was isolated on 7 January 2020.

 

Isolation did not mean separation but rather genomic sequencing, and the Wuhan team that conducted the research were the first to point out that Koch's Postulates hadn't been met for SARS-CoV-2, rendering the sneering rejection of related criticisms as unscientific rather absurd.

 

 

The part in bold above I think is really crucial here to digest.

 

The case for SARS-CoV-2 relies on its supposed genetic closeness to SARS-CoV-1 but, in reality, the alleged genetic sequence only matches its predecessor by 79.6%.

 

Whereas the case for SARS-CoV-1 relies on some unknown genetic material being discovered in only 1 of 30 cloned samples (cultured in fetal monkey liver cells) which only matched a suspected betacoronavirus by 57% leaving 43% unaccounted for. And, after supposedly isolating the virus, only half of the patients even tested positive for SARS-CoV-1 with no answer as to why the other half didn't!

 

The discovery of both alleged micro-organisms seems somewhat tenuous to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/28/2020 at 10:15 PM, MaryCochrane said:

I believe that the covid virus has not been isolated listening to David and I was busy letting people know it wasn't iscolated and someone sent me this link. Can anyone tell me if its reliable? Thanks 

https://sunnybrook.ca/research/media/item.asp?c=2&i=2069&f=covid-19-isolated-2020&fbclid=IwAR21EAOY3aU_dKGXdNpujJLU0pg4jUUpC2gUGfrM8BN2laTm4c4bl-NCg1Y#.XmsmoGqClHs.twitter

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Google and found for example the following articles:

 

Debunked: Yes, the virus that causes Covid-19 has been isolated and photographed
https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-covid-19-isolated-photographed-5342610-Feb2021/

 

The virus that causes COVID-19 has been isolated, and is the basis for the vaccines currently in development
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-isolated/fact-check-the-virus-that-causes-covid-19-has-been-isolated-and-is-the-basis-for-the-vaccines-currently-in-development-idUSKBN28E2SB

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

Edited by Porssimies
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Porssimies said:

Some Google and found for example the following articles:

 

Debunked: Yes, the virus that causes Covid-19 has been isolated and photographed
https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-covid-19-isolated-photographed-5342610-Feb2021/

 

The virus that causes COVID-19 has been isolated, and is the basis for the vaccines currently in development
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-isolated/fact-check-the-virus-that-causes-covid-19-has-been-isolated-and-is-the-basis-for-the-vaccines-currently-in-development-idUSKBN28E2SB

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

 

Well mainstream sources aren't likely to go against the 'official narrative' are they? 😄

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before addressing Porssimies' post specifically, I think an important point needs to be made about the difference between what mainstream science declares as "isolation" of a virus and purification. I am no scientist but this point is addressed by the authors of the latest edition of 'Virus Mania' (page 388).

 

Quote

When cells, cell debris and particles are mixed in a laboratory culture, the only way to determine which RNA (or even proteins) are viral is to separate the particles from all non-viral material. However, some researchers use the term "isolation" in their work to give the impression to the uninitiated reader that a virus has been isolated in pure form. In fact, however, this has not happened, because the procedures described in these works do not represent a proper process of isolation including complete purification. Consequently, they misuse the term "isolation" in their publications.

 

Therefore, when reviewing the evidence presented of claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, we need to be mindful of the above and understand the "isolation" process that has been employed to determine if true purification (ergo isolation) has taken place.

 

Perhaps, @Porssimies, you could comment on whether the evidence you have presented for "isolation" of SARS-CoV-2 amounts to purification.

 

3 hours ago, Porssimies said:

Debunked: Yes, the virus that causes Covid-19 has been isolated and photographed
https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-covid-19-isolated-photographed-5342610-Feb2021/

 

 

Firstly, I don't think anybody on the forum has disputed that there are alleged images of the virus. My understanding of the images is that none of them have been obtained from completely purified virus. This has been confirmed by authors of 5 supposedly pivotal papers to Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter who authored the Off Guardian piece 'Covid-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless'.

 

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

 

Furthermore, the electron microscope images allegedly of SARS-CoV-2 show particles which vary greatly in size (ranging from 60 nm to 140 nm). But, according to the authors of 'Virus Mania', a virus with such extreme size variation "cannot exist by definition" (page 392).

 

But, more specifically now, I will address the evidence referred to in the quoted link above.

 

1) US / CDC

 

A paper was published in June 2020 by the CDC claiming that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated.

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

 

This paper has been heavily criticised by Dr Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morrell as it reveals that the alleged genome of SARS-CoV-2 has been pieced together on a computer. This is what Dr Tom Cowan has said on the matter:

 

Quote

This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morrell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC, published in June 2020. The article's purpose 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. In fact, the article section "Whole Genome Sequencing" shows 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)".

 

Perhaps @Porssimies if you are relying on the CDC's so-called evidence of isolation, you could respond to Dr Cowan's and Sally Fallon Morrell's claim above.

 

2) Canada

 

https://theconversation.com/i-study-viruses-how-our-team-isolated-the-new-coronavirus-to-fight-the-global-pandemic-133675

 

This is the source referred to by the fact check concerning the success of Canadian scientists of isolating the virus. This article, in turn, links to the two outlined below.

 

(i) Sunnybrook Institute

 

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/mcmaster-researcher-plays-key-role-in-isolating-covid-19-virus-for-use-in-urgent-research/

 

The Sunnybrook claims have already been referred to previously on this thread and debunked. Also, the above link appears to be just a press release rather the actual study so how can this be deemed proof of isolation of the virus?

 

 

(ii) University of Saskatchewan - VIDO-InterVac

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/coronavirus-research-lab-vido-intervac-1.5443244

 

This appears to be just a news article on research being undertaken and nowhere within the article are claims made that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated by this laboratory.

 

This is far from a proper paper outlining specific isolation and purification techniques deployed and can therefore be safely discarded as proof of isolation of SARS-CoV-2.

 

3) Ireland

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1433/5909421

 

Does this study even purport to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 in purified form?

 

Whilst it claims that "whole-genome sequencing" has been utilised to track outbreaks of the alleged virus, it seems that PCR has been applied following centrifugation of nasopharyngeal swabs via use of MagNA Pure 96 technology. The issue with centrifugation (spinning at high speed) is that the upper part of the centrifuged material is what is used as the end product (the "isolate") - this is known as a supernatant. But the supernatant contains all sorts of other things including nano-particles and exosomes which are often indistinguishable from viruses.

 

So it seems that, again with this study, the actual virus has not been purified first before subjecting the swab (with tens of billions of RNA and DNA molecules) containing the alleged micro-organism to centrifugation. Then the virus has been allegedly found from the supernatant via use of PCR taking "artificial and hypothetical primers (previously existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks)" ('Virus Mania' page 391). These primers are only made up of 18 to 24 base pairs each whilst SARS-CoV-2 is assumed to consist of 30,000 bases. From base pairs representing only 0.07 per cent of the virus genome with the rest of the sequence filled in by computer sequencing, it is claimed that this virus has been identified! Please explain @Porssimies why you think this is good science.

 

2 hours ago, Porssimies said:

 

A rather pathetic "fact check" in my view.

 

The evidence presented by Reuters stems from the first studies completed by Chinese scientists which were presented to the WHO in January 2020. These papers have been shown to be flawed in that the authors admit that complete purification of the virus never took place (see Off Guardian link above). And further, none of the authors apparently wrote back to Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter to advise that "complete purification is not a necessary step for solid virus detection" ('Virus Mania', page 388).

 

The Reuters "fact check" is very sparse on information concerning isolation of the virus and instead focuses more on subsequent vaccine development supposedly on the back of this. It is, in my view, a far from convincing attempt to demonstrate a solid scientific basis for the existence of SARS-CoV-2.

 

2 hours ago, Porssimies said:

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

 

This is merely a repeat of the CDC study referred to above which has been debunked by Dr Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morrell. See above.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Before addressing Porssimies' post specifically, I think an important point needs to be made about the difference between what mainstream science declares as "isolation" of a virus and purification. I am no scientist but this point is addressed by the authors of the latest edition of 'Virus Mania' (page 388).

 

 

Therefore, when reviewing the evidence presented of claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, we need to be mindful of the above and understand the "isolation" process that has been employed to determine if true purification (ergo isolation) has taken place.

 

Perhaps, @Porssimies, you could comment on whether the evidence you have presented for "isolation" of SARS-CoV-2 amounts to purification.

 

 

Firstly, I don't think anybody on the forum has disputed that there are alleged images of the virus. My understanding of the images is that none of them have been obtained from completely purified virus. This has been confirmed by authors of 5 supposedly pivotal papers to Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter who authored the Off Guardian piece 'Covid-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless'.

 

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

 

Furthermore, the electron microscope images allegedly of SARS-CoV-2 show particles which vary greatly in size (ranging from 60 nm to 140 nm). But, according to the authors of 'Virus Mania', a virus with such extreme size variation "cannot exist by definition" (page 392).

 

But, more specifically now, I will address the evidence referred to in the quoted link above.

 

1) US / CDC

 

A paper was published in June 2020 by the CDC claiming that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated.

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

 

This paper has been heavily criticised by Dr Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morrell as it reveals that the alleged genome of SARS-CoV-2 has been pieced together on a computer. This is what Dr Tom Cowan has said on the matter:

 

 

Perhaps @Porssimies if you are relying on the CDC's so-called evidence of isolation, you could respond to Dr Cowan's and Sally Fallon Morrell's claim above.

 

2) Canada

 

https://theconversation.com/i-study-viruses-how-our-team-isolated-the-new-coronavirus-to-fight-the-global-pandemic-133675

 

This is the source referred to by the fact check concerning the success of Canadian scientists of isolating the virus. This article, in turn, links to the two outlined below.

 

(i) Sunnybrook Institute

 

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/mcmaster-researcher-plays-key-role-in-isolating-covid-19-virus-for-use-in-urgent-research/

 

The Sunnybrook claims have already been referred to previously on this thread and debunked. Also, the above link appears to be just a press release rather the actual study so how can this be deemed proof of isolation of the virus?

 

 

(ii) University of Saskatchewan - VIDO-InterVac

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/coronavirus-research-lab-vido-intervac-1.5443244

 

This appears to be just a news article on research being undertaken and nowhere within the article are claims made that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated by this laboratory.

 

This is far from a proper paper outlining specific isolation and purification techniques deployed and can therefore be safely discarded as proof of isolation of SARS-CoV-2.

 

3) Ireland

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1433/5909421

 

Does this study even purport to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 in purified form?

 

Whilst it claims that "whole-genome sequencing" has been utilised to track outbreaks of the alleged virus, it seems that PCR has been applied following centrifugation of nasopharyngeal swabs via use of MagNA Pure 96 technology. The issue with centrifugation (spinning at high speed) is that the upper part of the centrifuged material is what is used as the end product (the "isolate") - this is known as a supernatant. But the supernatant contains all sorts of other things including nano-particles and exosomes which are often indistinguishable from viruses.

 

So it seems that, again with this study, the actual virus has not been purified first before subjecting the swab (with tens of billions of RNA and DNA molecules) containing the alleged micro-organism to centrifugation. Then the virus has been allegedly found from the supernatant via use of PCR taking "artificial and hypothetical primers (previously existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks)" ('Virus Mania' page 391). These primers are only made up of 18 to 24 base pairs each whilst SARS-CoV-2 is assumed to consist of 30,000 bases. From base pairs representing only 0.07 per cent of the virus genome with the rest of the sequence filled in by computer sequencing, it is claimed that this virus has been identified! Please explain @Porssimies why you think this is good science.

 

 

A rather pathetic "fact check" in my view.

 

The evidence presented by Reuters stems from the first studies completed by Chinese scientists which were presented to the WHO in January 2020. These papers have been shown to be flawed in that the authors admit that complete purification of the virus never took place (see Off Guardian link above). And further, none of the authors apparently wrote back to Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter to advise that "complete purification is not a necessary step for solid virus detection" ('Virus Mania', page 388).

 

The Reuters "fact check" is very sparse on information concerning isolation of the virus and instead focuses more on subsequent vaccine development supposedly on the back of this. It is, in my view, a far from convincing attempt to demonstrate a solid scientific basis for the existence of SARS-CoV-2.

 

 

This is merely a repeat of the CDC study referred to above which has been debunked by Dr Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morrell. See above.

 

Great post. Thanks for this, Eve. Genuinely appreciated, as always.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority of the people use Google to search information. This is what I did and I got some answers from google telling me the virus has been isolated. So I came into David Icke's forum to get some answers why google is telling me about the isolations.

 

I see I got some good answers. Thank you !

 

But what then happened is unbelievable. I got banned.

 

What  is happening ?

 

Just ask a wrong question and you will be banned. Isn't this exactly what happens in youtube and in other social media all over the world ?

 

Rgds

@Porssimies

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roska Postit said:

Majority of the people use Google to search information. This is what I did and I got some answers from google telling me the virus has been isolated. So I came into David Icke's forum to get some answers why google is telling me about the isolations.

 

I see I got some good answers. Thank you !

 

But what then happened is unbelievable. I got banned.

 

What  is happening ?

 

Just ask a wrong question and you will be banned. Isn't this exactly what happens in youtube and in other social media all over the world ?

 

Rgds

@Porssimies

 

If you'd bothered to have a little look around the forum first you would have found all your answers. 

Posting Googled mainstream articles here is a BIG red flag. We have many trolls hitting the forum with one mainstream post and never returning or continuing with their ridiculous mainstream position. 

This forum is FULL of everything and anything you need to comprehend how much the whole of Mankind is being lied to.. 

BC 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...