(Part 3 in a series covering the “pandemic“)
It’s quite possible that there isn’t even a new coronavirus circulating – it’s pretty much a matter of, “trust us, we’re experts; we isolated it and we know it’s responsible for the reported illnesses.” When it comes to viruses, it seems that Rivers’ postulates or other such standards – modified from Koch’s famous postulates used to prove that a particular microbe is responsible for a given disease – are customarily ignored. Really, the Rivers standard amounts to applying common sense: the suspected infectious agent is isolated from its ailing host and purified (a process that must include filtering out bacteria, so we can be confident that the virus is responsible for the illness); then it’s cultivated in host cells (as opposed to being cultivated on its own in lifeless media, as is done with bacteria); then susceptible organisms are exposed to the agent; the exposed organisms are shown to come down with the symptoms of the associated ailment; and the infectious agent is identified in appropriate tissue or fluids taken from the ailing organisms. This didn’t happen with SARS-CoV-2, the virus claimed to be responsible for COVID-19. It was identified by a process1 that involved comparing – one snippet at a time – a genetic soup extracted from the lungs of purported victims, with previously identified-by-dodgy-methods coronaviruses, and finding less than an 80% match with what’s called SARS-CoV. It’s akin to a murder investigation in which fingerprint media are shredded into tiny pieces which are assembled in various ways until there’s a passing resemblance to a print on file, at which point the authorities exclaim, “We’ve got him!” It’s quite possible that what is dubbed SARS-CoV-2 is some sort of chimera. The bottom line is that SARS-CoV-2 was never properly isolated, and so everything that has followed, in terms of identifying it as the culprit, developing tests for diagnosis, and changing life as we know it, is highly suspect.
Journalists at off-guardian.com contacted the four teams that conducted the most-cited research that identified SARS-CoV-2 and implicated it in COVID-19, and asked for proof that the teams had purified the virus before producing the pictures (electron micrographs) that were displayed to the world as SARS-CoV-2. None of the teams could provide such proof. The authors found it interesting that, “nobody said purification was not a necessary step.” Further confirmation that no such isolation has been performed comes from Canada’s National Research Council, which when asked via a an Access to Information Act request for proof – any proof – that SARS-CoV-2 had been properly isolated, responded, “A thorough search of NRC’s records has now been completed, and we regret to inform you that no records responsive to your request were identified.” Intrepid independent reporter Jon Rappaport, coming from a different angle – he was investigating the RT-PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 – found the following text nestled deep in a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) document: “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…” According to Rappaport, who has extensive experience covering medical issues:
“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.”
Now, if there is no novel coronavirus, there needs to be an explanation for what appears to be an unusual respiratory ailment, often leading to death. That is, there are a number of credible-seeming reports (here’s one; here’s another) that some “COVID” victims are suffering from serious respiratory impairment that isn’t attributable to normal causes, such as flu or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). (I’ll examine in a later post, the theory that newly deployed 5G telecommunications technology is responsible for this ailment.) Clearly, however, everything that we’ve been told about COVID-19 becomes a matter of belief rather than fact, if the foundation of the establishment narrative, the reality of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has not been proven.
But most cases of “COVID-19” appear to have very generic symptoms that could easily be attributable to common respiratory ailments. If there’s really not a novel virus in play, that would explain why such a high percentage of “COVID” fatalities involve other serious medical conditions [probably should have a link to some study or another].
It is interesting to observe that some active medical professionals – presumably taking a significant career risk in publicly embracing such a position – have denied that any fatalities during this “pandemic” can be ascribed to COVID-19, claiming that they have yet to see a case wherein the patient died without having another lethal medical condition. For example, Dr. Stoyan Alexov, president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, stated in a webinar: “[N]o one has died from the coronavirus. The people are dying with coronavirus, not from. There is no need for [either the term] pandemic or epidemic. Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Sweden — this is what my colleagues from all those countries said.” Klaus Püschsel, a forensic doctor from Hamburg who has already examined numerous test-positive deceased, wrote2: “The numbers do not justify the fear of corona”. He went on to claim: “Corona is a relatively harmless viral disease,” basing his opinion on the fact that all of his deceased COVID patients had pre-existing conditions such that, “even if that sounds harsh, they would all have died in the course of this year.”
[In my next COVID post, I’ll take a critical look at the RT-PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19. No laboratory test is without limitations, and it’s reasonable to scrutinize this one, particularly in that so much hysteria has been engendered – and so many draconian policies have been justified – by the high numbers of test-positives.]
Notes:
1 Advance just over 5 minutes into the interview to catch where Dr. Kaufman describes the process used to identify the “novel” coronavirus.
2 See entries under “April 18, 2020 Medical Updates.”
0 Comments