Have the “scientists” really isolated SARS COV-2?
It appears not.
From a comment on one of my YouTube Videos:
by: Aqua Candela
Numerous Studies allege the isolation/purification/quantifying of SarsCov2 (Covid19)
The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice (fulfilment of Koch’s postulates) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.939389v3.full
Isolation, Sequence, Infectivity, and Replication Kinetics of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 | https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-1495_article
Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea |
Awaiting fix for the missing link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
Isolation and characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient |
Awaiting fix for the missing link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed only by cell culture isolation before the local outbreak in an Italian seven-week-old suckling baby | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220303428
Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient |
Awaiting fix for the missing link:
Whats the problem?
(1). It was claimed the genome had been found a while back around February or maybe earlier. The genome has around 30,000 base pairs but here’s the problem: They have only been able to find 37 base pairs through PCR. That is approximately 0.01% of the total, the rest was created in a computer. Let me say that again 99.99% of the genome is computer generated! Here’s another problem how did they find the 37 pairs? PCR uses lab created primers designed to target specific sequences. You have to know what sequence you are targeting before hand when you are ordering the primers from the lab. How do you do that if you haven’t sequenced the genome? You assume you will find a certain sequence, then design the primers. Its all conjecture! https://www.sott.net/article/443103-Only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-SARS-CoV-2-virus
(2). The PCR-test uses primers to identify genetic material that belongs to SARS-COV-2. It turns out that one of those primers was not a viral sequence, but a sequence from genetic material every human being has: chromosome 8.
In other words, that primer will always be positive, infected or not.
WHO PCR-test primer sequences for COVID-19 detection PDF 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 In the table in the 2nd row, look for this information: nCoV_IP2-12759Rv – CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT
This is chromosome 8 which you can verify in GenBank.
GenBank Chromosome 8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/NC_000008.11?report=genbank&log$=nuclalign&from=63648346&to=63648363
(3). PCR is a surrogate technique, NOT a gold standard. It does not directly measure any “V”.
Kary Mullis, (Nobel Prize winner and inventor of PCR) published on continum Vol 4 No 5. “PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all.” https://www.altheal.org/continuum/Vol4no5.pdf
Then again CDC already knows this “Finally, case or control status might be subject to misclassification because of imperfect sensitivity or specificity of PCR-based testing” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6936a5-H.pdf
Admission made months ago by the Australian government (top of page 2): “it should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and non-infective RNA” https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Australia-govt-PCR-cant-distinguish.pdf
Portuguese Court Rules That The PCR Test “Is Unable To Determine” A COVID-19 Infection https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/11/23/portuguese-court-rules-that-the-pcr-test-is-unable-to-determine-a-covid-19-infection/?fbclid=IwAR2k-YFQ34ELidqwH9w1Eaxr74PoNS6k9sNFVkZHm23kThoqdmlG9SDDCgY
(4). PCR measures genetic material alleged to come from a “V”. There is no gold standard for PCR, because the “V” has never been isolated, purified, and shown to exist. None of these papers proves isolation or purification of any sort, and they make downright obvious fraudulent claims. They all repeat the same exact procedure (described in “methods” or “isolation” sections) which is basically innoculating foreign cell cultures with swab samples / lung fluids and lots of toxic chemicals while keeping them in “minimal growth medium” (i.e. starving condition). This procedure induces cell decay, thus creating numerous apoptotic bodies, including exosomes. These particles come from the cells, and do not cause harm. Under electron microscopes these particles are shown and claimed to be the “V”. This is scientific fraud, NOT isolation. They never go ahead and actually isolate those particles (which is required for Koch’s postulates) and show that they have distinct characteristics. Not even talking about pathogenicity, or contagion. Those have been disproven numerous times throughout history. Papers that claim to have sequenced the genome of the “V” use a technique which can be simplified as identifing short (VERY short, compared to what is claimed to be the full genome) snippets of genetic material from dirty cell cultures and stitching them together in a chimeric fashion while filling out MASSIVE gaps via computer models, not based on any reality.
Exsample: (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Mar 15 “Construction of Chimeric SARS-Like Viruses. Both wild-type and chimeric WIV-CoV infectious clones were designed using published sequences and based on the SARS-CoV infectious clone (10). Synthetic construction of chimeric mutant and full-length WIV1-CoV (wuhan) were approved by the UNC Institutional Biosafety Committee and the Dual Use Research of Concern Committee.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801244/
The common isolation technique involves centrifugation and filtration, which you can see in all of the following studies.
-Isolation of “v”s in sea algae:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004268228371189X
-Isolation of various bacteriophages:
https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1472-765X.2003.01262.x
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002228367890431X
https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04578.x
-Isolation of exosomes (different methodes are also discussed):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912013004943
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939641115004324
https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-4939-2550-6_15
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/lc/c5lc00240k
-Isolation of fungal “v”s:
https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-66-6-1221
Never done for “the elleged novel CV”. Centrifugation & filtration have to be done before lysing because the “v” particles must not be mixed with all the other content (cells from the culture, bacteria, fungi, extracellular vesicles, free genetic material etc). Ideally, cells should be taken directly from a patient, grown in a culture, then centrifuged & filtrated. Using density gradient separation, you can separate the “v” particles, and investigate under an electron microscope in order to show homogeneity, determine the shape, size etc. Then full genome sequencing or some other technique can be performed in order to obtain the full intact genome. “Next generation sequencing” used in those “CV” papers only works if you already know the full genome. In order to identify something novel, you have to isolate it first.
Besides, none of these “CV” papers has a negative control. This should immediately raise red flags for anybody who is aware of the scientific method.