[D66] [JD: 176] Has SARS-COV-2 been isolated and purified to show existence?

[R.O.]

fos-sa.org
<https://fos-sa.org/2021/08/10/has-sars-cov-2-been-isolated-and-purified-to-show-existence/>



  Has SARS-COV-2 been isolated and purified to show existence?

Published by FOS-SA Freedom Of Speech View all posts by FOS-SA
16-21 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to an influx of emails and comments, we felt the need to recap why
we believe SARS-COV-2 has yet to be proven to exist. Firstly one has to
discuss what process virologists use in the discovery of a new virus.


    Isolation versus Purification

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

  * Isolation • “The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being
    isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons;
    solitariness”.
  * Purification • “Freeing from dirt or defilement; cleansing;
    separation of the dross, dregs, refuse, or other debasing or
    deteriorating matter, to obtain the substance in a pure condition”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

^1  Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the
haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli Akhwale et al, PLOS
One, Published: April 25,
2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734
<https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734> —
accessed 2/15/21
^2  “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential
Link Between Death and Regeneration,” Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in
Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October
2. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full
<https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full> —
accessed 2/15/21
^3  “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS
Viruses,” Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020 May


          Dr Lanka’s conducted a study to reproduce this process, except
          they used proper control experiments to show that each one of
          these steps can be done without the presence of a virus.

  * In other words, cytopathic effects are observed due to cell
    starvation and the introduction of antibiotics and other toxic
    chemicals;
  * Computer programs can manufacture “viral” sequences without the need
    for an actual virus to be present and, finally;
  * The particles seen under the electron microscope are normal
    constituents of dead and dying cells.

This was the first study of its kind, and it is truly revolutionary.

https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/cpe-english:f
<https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/cpe-english:f>

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

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

The WUHAN researchers stated that they had effectively pieced the
SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence together by matching fragments found in
samples with other, previously discovered genetic sequences. From the
gathered material, they found an 87.1% match with SARS coronavirus
(SARS-Cov). They used de novo assembly and targeted PCR and found
29,891-base-pair, which shared a 79.6% sequence match to SARS-CoV.

They had to use de novo assembly because they had no prior knowledge of
the correct sequence or order of those fragments. Quite simply, the
WHO’s statement that Chinese researchers isolated the virus on the 7th
January is false.

The Wuhan team used 40 rounds of RT-qPCR amplification to match
fragments of cDNA (complementary DNA constructed from sampled RNA
fragments) with the published SARS coronavirus genome (SARS-CoV).
Unfortunately, it isn’t clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome
is either.


    Exhibit: A – The test was produced BEFORE having virus material
    available.


        Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time
        RT-PCR- published on 23 Jan 2020

Background: The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel
coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories
as*/virus isolates are unavailable/* while there is growing evidence
that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and
international spread through travellers does already occur. Aim: We
aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in
public health laboratory settings/*without having virus material
available*/. Methods: Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow
for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of
2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid
technology. 

 A novel coronavirus currently termed 2019-nCoV was officially announced
as the causative agent by Chinese authorities on 7 January. A viral
genome sequence was released for immediate public health support via the
community online resource virological.org on 10 January (Wuhan-Hu-1,
GenBank accession number MN908947 [2]), followed by four other genomes
deposited on 12 January in the viral sequence database curated by the
Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID). The*/genome
sequences suggest presence of a virus/* closely related to the members
of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03
outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4]. The species also comprises a large
number of viruses mostly detected in rhinolophid bats in Asia and Europe.


    Exhibit: B – NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN

What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where
the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (eg, White / Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well
as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer
state
<https://translate.google.com/website?sl=de&tl=en&ajax=1&elem=1&se=1&u=http://www.torstenengelbrecht.com> ,
particle purification – ie the separation of an object from everything
else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie
purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of
pitchblende – is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of
a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question
comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it
can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA – but it cannot
determine /where these particles came from/. That has to be determined
beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this
case, RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be an RNA virus),
we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for
virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the
presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are
referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the
electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show
purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” – and NB.,
Nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers
like /“*No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree
of purification*”/ (see below).

We asked several study authors, “Do your electron micrographs show the
purified virus?”, They gave the following responses:

*Study 1:* Leo LM Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human
coronavirus threatening human health” /Nature Medicine/, March 2020

*Replying Author:* Malik Peiris

*Date:* May 12, 2020

*Answer: */“The image is the virus budding from an infected cell.*It is
not purified virus*. “/

*Study 2:* Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated
from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, /Osong Public Health and
Research Perspectives/ , February 2020

*Replying Author:* Myung-Guk Han

*Date:* May 6, 2020

*Answer: */“We could not estimate the degree of purification because*we
do not purify* and concentrate the virus cultured in cells. “/

*Study 3:* Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient
with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, /Journal of Korean Medical Science/ ,
February 24, 2020

*Replying Author:* Wan Beom Park

*Date:* March 19, 2020

*Answer: */“We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the *degree
of purification*. “/

*Study 4:* Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with
Pneumonia in China”, 2019, /New England Journal of Medicine/ , February
20, 2020

*Replying Author:* Wenjie Tan

*Date:* March 18, 2020

*Answer: */“[We show ] an image of sedimented virus particles, *not
purified ones*. “/

Source: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless 
<https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/>


    Exhibit: C – CDC and EU Commission acknowledge that the virus has
    never been isolated

It is unequivocally recognized by both the European Commission and the
US CDC, the most important national health organization in the world
that the virus has never been isolated. The European Commission, which
in its document of 16 April 2020 last wrote: “Since no virus isolates
with a quantified amount of the SARS-CoV-2 are currently available …”1 

The CDC writes: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are
currently available…”2 

In short, both Europe and the US say the same thing: they call a
material in which the virus has not been quantified “isolated virus”.
But if it hasn’t been quantified, how can it be an isolated virus? 

/“In other words, it is a Frankenstein virus which has been concocted
and stitched together using genomic database sequences (some viral, some
not). It has never been properly purified and isolated so that it could
be sequenced from end-to-end once derived from living tissue; instead,
it’s just digitally assembled from a computer database. In this paper,
the CDC scientists state they took just 37 base pairs from a genome of
30,000 base pairs which means that about 0.001% of the viral sequence is
derived from actual living samples or real bodily tissue. In other
words, they took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program,
which filled in the rest of the base pairs. /

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Working%20document%20test%20performance%2016%20April%202020.pdf
<https://fos-sa.org/Users/User/Downloads/Working%20document%20test%20performance%2016%20April%202020.pdf>
page19

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Viral Diseases,
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus 2 (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic
Panel
<https://web.archive.org/web/20201029124047/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download>
, 13/07/2020, p.39.


    Exhibit: D – FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the
    world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification anywhere, ever

*Here are five compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79
institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the
isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from
authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an
email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron
Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch
Institute, *last updated July 13, 2021

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

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

*Part
3: **https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-purification-existence-part-3-April-3.pdf*
<https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FOI-replies-SARS-COV-2-isolation-purification-existence-part-3-April-3.pdf>

*Part
4:* *https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-June-3-2021-part-4.pdf*
<https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-June-3-2021-part-4.pdf>

*Part
5: **https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-July-13-2021-part-5.pdf*
<https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FOI-replies-re-SARS-COV-2-purification-existence-July-13-2021-part-5.pdf>

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


    Exhibit: E Dr.Wu Zunyou-Chinese Center for Disease Control- “They
    did not isolate the virus”.


    Exhibit: F –  FDA document admits “covid” PCR test was developed
    without isolated covid samples for test calibration, effectively
    admitting it’s testing something else
    <https://fos-sa.org/2021/08/02/fda-document-admits-covid-pcr-test-was-developed-without-isolated-covid-samples-for-test-calibration-effectively-admitting-its-testing-something-else/>

Please note this an updated version of Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Division of Viral Diseases, CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus 2
(2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
<https://web.archive.org/web/20201029124047/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download>
and is effective: 07/21/21 so essentially they still DONT have ANY
quantified virus isolates

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019- nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
were determined in Limit of Detection studies. 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

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


    Exhibit: G – SARS-CoV-2 the Theoretical Virus: UK Government
    Couldn’t Produce Evidence

The governments of many nations around the world couldn’t seem to come
up with a real virus either when challenged to do so. More evidence
proving the “virus” is constructed on a computer database from a digital
gene bank comes from Frances Leader
<https://hive.blog/worldnews/@francesleader/email-exchange-with-uk-mhra-exposing-the-genomic-sequence-of-sarscov2>,
who questioned the UK MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency) whether a real isolated virus was used to make the *COVID
vax* (read more about the COVID vaccine which is not a vaccine here
<https://thefreedomarticles.com/not-a-vaccine-mrna-covid-vaccine-chemical-pathogen-device/>).
Leader found that the WHO protocols that Pfizer used to produce the mRNA
do not appear to identify any nucleotide sequences that are unique to
the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Leader asked if the “virus” was actually a
computer generated genomic sequence, and ultimately the MHRA confirmed
they had no real specimen:

    /“The DNA template does not come directly from an isolated virus
    from an infected person.”/

These are just a few examples, there are many more. So has SARS-COV-2
been isolated and purified to show existence? You decide.

Extracts cited:

T Engelbrecht, K Demeter,  Cowan & Kaufman, I Davis, C Massey,
fos-sa.org, M Freeman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/20210817/09d42c08/attachment-0001.html>