Many Things That Are Wrong With PCR Test/Quick Covid Testing And Question If SARS-CoV-2 Virus Was Isolated, Purified And Proven To Cause The Disease (Part 2)
The CDC is admitting the virus hasn’t been isolated. In other words, its existence is unproven.
(Taken from: “The Smoking Gun: Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available. “)
Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.
A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.
Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.
Page 38 specifically states that the test does not detect cov-19 and cannot rule out that the results weren’t caused by other viruses or bacterial infection. It proves that the test is a complete sham.
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
Only Poisoned Monkey Kidney Cells ‘Grew’ The ‘Virus’
• Dr. Tom Cowan
• October 15, 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.
First, in the section titled "Whole Genome Sequencing," we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.
To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn's hair, hooves and horn.
The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:
What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible "hosts" or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.
The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.
The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this "new coronavirus" is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.
My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.”
No Proof For The RNA Being Of Viral Origin
Now the question is: 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 (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. 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 a 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).
· Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”
· Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”
· Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
· Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
PCR Testing/ Bombshell Evidence: Covid RNA Base Pairs Are Identical To Chromosome 8 Human DNA
(Taken from article: https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/04/06/bombshell-who-coronavirus-pcr-test-primer-sequence-is-found-in-all-human-dna/?fbclid=IwAR3MLXyv9d9VXwhKOJDKgwB6hIJqS0QLfFkMv8xqsLtRn8h9qFAjcR_V2rE)
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2 (ON THIS LINK IS PROTOCOL: REAL-TIMERT-PCR ASSAYS FOR THE DETECTION OF SARS-COV-2 BY WHO – screenshot is below)
This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has led to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!
The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?
One cannot really overstate the significance of this finding. At minimum, it should have a notable impact on test results.
Homo sapiens chromosome 8, GRCh38.p12 Primary Assembly
Sequence ID: NC_000008.11 Length: 145138636
Range 1: 63648346 to 63648363 is “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT”
Update: After some effort, I have finally discovered a way to display proof (beyond my screenshots) that human chromosome 8 has this exact same 18-character sequence. Please try the link below. The sequence is shown at the bottom of the page. (this reference is taken from article mentioned in link above).
(Chromosome 8 is one of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. People normally have two copies of this chromosome. Chromosome 8 spans about 145 million base pairs (the building material of DNA) and represents between 4.5 and 5.0% of the total DNA in cells.)
Videos:
Bombshell Evidence that COVID is Chromosome 8 Human DNA - Faulty PCR Test!
Faulty PCR Test - David Icke and Dr Andrew Kaufman - COVID is Chromosome 8 Human DNA
Very interesting questions from a researcher (Pieter Borger (W & W Research 80 PUBLICATIONS 1,986 CITATIONS) who have published his own study titled:
“A SARS-like Coronavirus was Expected, but nothing was done to be Prepared”( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341120750_A_SARS-like_Coronavirus_was_Expected_but_nothing_was_done_to_be_Prepared)
His question was posted in Question section on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_SARS-CoV2_been_isolated_purified_and_demonstrated_to_be_the_cause_of_COVID19
Has SARS-CoV2 been isolated, purified and demonstrated to be the cause of COVID19?
“Pondering the riddles of life, I was wondering whether the virus SARS-CoV2 has been isolated, purified and demonstrated to be the cause of COVID19? Is there a publications which shows this?
I can run a RT-PCR myself, and detect Corona sequences, but that is the not scientific proof I am looking for. I already did a pubmed search, but I could not find such studies.
Does anybody know whether the virus was isolated, purified and tested for specific infection to cause COVID19?
Thanks!”
Interesting parts are:
· Together, these studies strongly suggest that the coronavirus causing COVID-19 is very closely related to the SARS-CoV virus of 2003-if not a predecessor. Genetic analyses indicated that the virus of 2003 was not a recombination of known viruses, but a novel virus that emerged suddenly from a mammalian reservoir in China. But unlike most other coronaviruses, the SARS-CoV strain of 2003 did not contain the HE protein [9,10]. Further, a short lysine-rich region (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKKTDEAQ) in the N-protein was reported to be unique to SARS-CoV [10]. Intriguingly, an almost identical sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKKADETQ) is found in the N-protein of SARS-CoV2 [11]. Both characteristics prove that we are dealing with a variant of the same virus of 2003.
· SARS-CoV research was discontinued after 2008 : One of the most disturbing discoveries of my investigations into SARS-Viruses, is the observation that SARS-CoV research was discontinued in 2008.
After 2008, no studies addressing SARS-CoV were published, signifying that scientific studies into SARS-biology and medication were arrested. The next scientific SARS-CoV publication was not published until December 2019, after the SARS-COV2 outbreak in China.
· In 2012, under the supervision of the Robert-Koch Institute (Berlin, Gemany) the advisors of the German government anticipated a novel SARS-outbreak and presented a detailed risk analysis of a possible modified SARS-virus outbreak. (translated PDF format of same document will be included in attachments)
So important questions that this researcher is asking and important points he found are:
· To my astonishment, and in favor of my claim, the German Virology Institute (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin) made a aspecific RT-PCR test kit for COVID testing, but it detects SARS-CoV of 2003. So, in my humble opinion: SARS = COVID.
· Pondering the riddles of life, I was wondering whether the virus SARS-CoV2 has been isolated, purified and demonstrated to be the cause of COVID19? Is there a publication which shows this?
· I can run a RT-PCR myself, and detect Corona sequences, but that is the not scientific proof I am looking for. I already did a pubmed search, but I could not find such studies.
· Does anybody know whether the virus was isolated, purified and tested for specific infection to cause COVID19?
· SARS-CoV2 exist as a virus (exosome aprticle with an RNA genome) is now scientifically as good as certain. That it is able to fuse with human cells via the ACE2 protein seems very plausible. That it causes COVID has not been demonstrated, however. That would require unethical experiments. So, we have to wait and find out
· Covid 19 you say it was shown to be the cause? How was it shown? Were people infected with SARS-CoV2 and developed COVID? Can you link the publication, where it is demonstrated?
· Thanks for this paper, which comes very close to what I am looking for. The problem, however, is that it is PCR identification, because they used the highly conserved N protein. Unfortunately, the authors did not provide the primer sequences. So, how sure can we be that this is SARS-CoV2 and not SARS-CoV1? My own research shows COVID = SARS. Interestingly, the COVID19-RTPCR detection kit developed by the Robert Koch Institute in Germany is also a specific, as it also detects SARS-CoV1. Why are not specific primers chosen? Read also my paper which presents evidence for my point (original research is also included in this attachments)
· I agree. It is all they have currently. The other symptoms can be anything, from pneumonia to influenza. What do you recommend/suggest?
Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates
(Taken from: https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/)
Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei Jun 9, 2020
About 150 years ago, scientists painstakingly constructed a set of principles that can prove whether a particular microbe is the cause of a specific disease or is just a bystander. Those three principles are known as the Koch postulates.
From all the available information, the novel coronavirus doesn’t appear to meet any of these tenets, never mind all three.
Like most human endeavours, the Koch postulates were the product of collaboration. First, Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts, and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining them until they were published in 1890. The resulting three postulates are:
1. The pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease.
2. The causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite.
3. After being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture (or cloned), it can induce the disease anew.
The principles have been altered almost beyond recognition by various researchers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545348/?page=1) over the ensuing 130 years. But the changes concomitantly watered down the postulates. That’s why they’re still used today by most researchers seeking to robustly prove or disprove the existence of a pathogen and its exclusive relationship with a particular disease.
There’s an urgent need for scientists to step up and do this conclusively with the novel coronavirus and COVID-19. But, strangely, the fire hose of scientific papers on the virus-disease dyad is only a sickly trickle on this tremendously important aspect of it.
A very straightforward and inexpensive experiment is all that’s needed to prove that the first postulate has been met.
Here’s how to do it. Test blood samples from a large number of people for the novel coronavirus using a test that’s been proven by several non-conflicted third parties to be accurate – i.e., to have very low rates of false positives and false negatives.
Then, if all the people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 are the same ones who tested positive for the novel coronavirus, that would prove the virus causes COVID-19. (Note that COVID-19 would have to be diagnosed based on a well-defined and finite set of symptoms. The currently-used and excessively broad diagnostic criteria – such as pneumonia, or the combination of fever and cough – doesn’t cut it, because those are present in many other respiratory conditions.)
But such an experiment has never been done, or if it has been done it hasn’t been made public.
The real kicker, though, is that the third postulate – isolating and sequencing the virus and then showing it causes the disease in other organisms – has not been fulfilled either.
We’ve scoured the internet and found no proof that scientists have done the simple steps required to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 conclusively meets even one – never mind all — of the third postulate’s constituent parts. Those parts are:
isolation from a human patient’s cells of full-length novel-coronavirus DNA*
sequencing of the isolated DNA, then determining that the identical sequence is not present in any other virus, and next replicating or cloning the DNA to form a new copy of the virus
injecting the new copy of the virus into a statistically significant number of living hosts (usually lab animals) and seeing whether those animals develop the discrete diagnostic symptoms associated with COVID-19 rather than developing the diagnostic symptoms of any other infection or disease.
A few scientists have claimed that some or all of the postulates have been fulfilled. Their papers have been given laudatory coverage by the media, public-health officials and politicians.
The problem is that each of these papers falls apart on even cursory examination.
For example, in February 2020 Chinese and Dutch researchers published studies purporting to show they had isolated the virus, which is the first step in fulfilling the third postulate.
But both teams sourced the virus from animals rather than humans. (And on top of that, the Dutch study was done 15 years ago on SARS-CoV, not SARS-CoV-2.)
Another example is a review paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7077245/pdf/viruses-12-00135.pdf) by two Americans published in February 2020 and cinematically titled ‘Return of the Coronavirus: 2019-nCoV.’ Two places in the paper suggest the third postulate has been at least partially fulfilled.
The first is in the section titled ‘Emergence.’ There, the two authors write:
· After extensive speculation about a causative agent [of the Wuhan outbreak], the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a report by the Wall Street Journal and announced identification of a novel CoV on 9th January [2]. The novel CoV (2019-nCoV) was isolated from a single patient and subsequently verified in 16 additional patients [3]. While not yet confirmed to induce the viral pneumonia, 2019-nCoV was quickly predicted as the likely causative agent.
Strikingly, though, reference 3 that the authors link to at the end of the second sentence is a World Health Organization press release rather than a published study.
· The section’s next two sentences describe several Chinese research groups’ virus-sequencing results. However, these sequencing attempts are shoddy. For example, one group’s paper has many red flags (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3)
– and indeed, on the web page showing the group’s sequence, commenters point to such problems as ‘sequencing and assembly artifacts.’ (https://virological.org/t/novel-2019-coronavirus-genome/319/5 ) That group also didn’t replicate or clone the DNA to form a new copy of the virus, as required by the third postulate. (All subsequent sequencing attempts also have fatal flaws with respect to meeting the postulates.)
Yet the Chinese researchers’ gene sequences are integral to all of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test kits. (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf?sfvrsn=a9ef618c_2)
ADDITIONAL NOTE : CYCLES USED IN AMPLIFYING ARE 45 TIMES
The second place in the review paper that refers to the principles is in the fifth section, ‘Achieving Koch Postulates.’ The authors assert that:
· Traditional identification of a microbe as the causative agent of disease requires fulfilment of Koch’s postulates, modified by Rivers for viral diseases [37]. At the present time, the 2019-nCoV has been isolated from patients, detected by specific assays in patients, and cultured in host cells (one available sequence is identified as a passage isolate), starting to fulfil these criteria.
What’s missing is even one reference to back up those assertions.
Meanwhile, public-health officials appear oblivious to this gaping hole in the science. They imperiously pronounce that they’re using the best data available, and act as if evidence-based decision-making is the substrate for the draconian measures they’re imposing.
Could it be that they’re in fact using decision-based evidence-making?
Here’s an idea: please email your local, state/provincial AND national/federal governments, asking for solid scientific evidence that:
1. SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness that matches the characteristics of all of the deaths attributed to COVID-19
2. the virus has been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness.
If you get a response, please share it below.
*The virus contains RNA, which it injects into the nuclei of cells. There, the RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase enzymes.^
Sources:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/
