SeroClea
Question
Asked 8 June 2020
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!
Most recent answer
It has never been isolated or purified to homogeneity even though there are methods to do it. Furthermore, in the absence of definitive data all we have are correlations between PCR data on a hypothetical virus and clinical symptoms that, while occasionally severe and/or deadly, are not specific to Covid.
It all has a "bad smell".....
2 Recommendations
Popular answers (1)
Physician; independent researcher / consultant - infectious disease specialist - editor
Yes. It has been isolated and shwon to be the cause of COVID-19. There are many publications to be retrieved easily from PubMed.
@Abdesselam Babouri: COVID-19 is not a virus, but a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
8 Recommendations
All Answers (82)
Ankara University
Greetings sir.
A group of researchers from my country isolated SARS-CoV2 and they declared that by using same procedure one can isolate and use the outcome to develop drug candidates.
Wish you happy and healthy days.
1 Recommendation
University of Guelma
Dear Pieter,
Covid-19 is a new virus, it is a little difficult to do research and find good results and publish them.
1 Recommendation
Physician; independent researcher / consultant - infectious disease specialist - editor
Yes. It has been isolated and shwon to be the cause of COVID-19. There are many publications to be retrieved easily from PubMed.
@Abdesselam Babouri: COVID-19 is not a virus, but a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
8 Recommendations
Physician; independent researcher / consultant - infectious disease specialist - editor
If you enter the search term "COVID-19" in PubMed you will find 20,636 results (June 9, 11 am).
4 Recommendations
W+W Research Association
Christian G Meyer 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.
W+W Research Association
Mehmet Murat Kisla 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 developen by the Robert Koch Institute in germany is also aspecific, as it also detects SARS-CoV1. Why are not specific primers chosen? Read also my paper which presents evidence for my point:
1 Recommendation
Ankara University
Pieter Borger Glad to be of help.
I see your point. However, I cannot offer an elaborate explanation about a solution since i do not have molecular biology expertise.
Thanks for enlightenment sir. I will examine your paper.
W+W Research Association
Harasit Kumar Paul Thanks for your link. I will go through.
1 Recommendation
W+W Research Association
Arvind Singh Thanks. Will go through.
W+W Research Association
In 2003, Nature reported that SARS-CoV had two highly specific genetic fingerprints. First, unlike the other coronaviruses, the SARS-CoV strain of 2003 did not contain the HE protein. The HE gene is also absent from SARS-CoV2. Further, a short lysine-rich region (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) in the N-protein was reported to be unique to SARS-CoV. Intriguingly, the exact same sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is found in the N-protein of SARS-CoV2.
Both characteristics prove that the SARS of 2003 never really was eridicated but probably hid somewhere in animals (bats?). So, my thesis is that we are dealing with a weakened and slightly recombined strain of SARS of 2003.
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.
1 Recommendation
Frederick Community College
Hello Pieter Borger ,
As a layperson, I think I understand your insistence that Robert Koch's four postulates for determining when a microorganism is actually the cause of a disease be tested: (a) the microorganism must be found in every case of the disease; (b) the microorganism must be isolated from the host and must be grown in a pure culture; (c) the microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host; and (d) the microorganism must be found to be present in the experimental host so infected. But let me suggest a logical - though not necessarily biological - possibility.
It has been known for some time that Koch's first postulate, (a), must be modified because it does not necessarily hold true if the person or animal is a carrier of the disease who does not exhibit any symptoms of the disease, i.e., they are asymptomatic. Perhaps the most famous carrier of a disease to which they did not themselves succumb was Typhoid Mary, a.k.a., Mary Mallon (1869-1938), a cook who infected whole households without having had any symptoms of the disease herself. Today, the estimates are that 2-4% of acute typhoid cases result in what are called “chronic carrier states” in these individuals, see,
[1] Mary Dobson; Disease, The Extraordinary Stories Behind History’s Deadliest Killers; Quercus; 2007; pp. 58-60.
[2] Wendell R. Ames, Morton Robins; Age and sex as factors in development of the typhoid carrier state, and a model for estimating carrier prevalence; American Journal of Public Health; Vol. 33; No. 3; March 1943; pp. 221-230. [Note, this citation was found in the References section of the insert accompanying the Typhoid Vaccine Live Oral Ty21a Vivotif® manufactured by PaxVax Berna GmbH, Switzerland. Caution, this insert misspelled “Robins” as “Robbins”.]
Besides typhus, cholera and dysentery can also reside within individuals without afflicting them with clinical symptoms.
[3] Sebastian G. B. Amyes; Bacteria, A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press; 2013; pp. 20-21.
Typhoid Mary would be referred to today as a superspreader. But what if the superspreaders of the coronavirus spread a SARS-like virus, which when replicating itself in an individual might change into SARS-COV-2 or not as the case may be, depending on some genetic trait of the infected individual? Such a mechanism would explain why Wuhan experienced an outbreak without being the origin of the disease. This mechanism would also obviated the necessity for an animal host (bats) or an animal intermediary (pigs) to faciltitate the transformation of the SARS-like virus into a SARS-COV-2 virus. It would also explain why some people have none or mild symptoms, while other people have prolonged or even chronic symptoms or death. As I said this is a logical possibility, but it may not be biologically possible.
Like Pasteur, Koch had his critics, and he also had his share of experimental demonstrations that clearly contradicted his aforementioned four conditions for microorganisms being the causative agent of a given disease. Perhaps the most famous contrary experiment was the one where Max von Pettenkofer drank a sample teeming with the cholera bacterium given to him by Koch, and, with the exception of a brief bout of diarrhea, was no worse for the wear. According to pp. 73-74 of the book by Waller, four of Pettenkofer’s students/associates also consumed solutions infested with cholera bacteria, again, without coming down with the disease.
[4] Paul de Kruif; Microbe Hunters; Pocket Books, Inc.; 1940.
[5] John Waller; Leaps in the Dark, The Making of Scientific Reputations; Oxford University Press; 2004; pp. 63-64 & 73-74.
No one knows exactly why Pettenkofer and company survived their experiment of ingesting solutions of the cholera bacterium. Waller’s hypothesis is that Pettenkofer et al. had all been exposed earlier to a weakened form of the cholera bacterium, which provided them with acquired immunity to the disease.
Another possible explanation relates to our genetic makeup, in particular to the portions of chromosome number 9, which code for, among other things, the various blood groups (A, B, AB, and O). Initially, it was thought that the different blood groups were neutral in their evolutionary advantage, but in the 1960’s it was realized that people with the AB blood type were very resistant to the unrelenting and wasting diaarhea that accompanies cholera and makes it so lethal.
[6] Matt Ridley; Genome, The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters; Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.; 1999; pp. 139-140.
For other evolutionary benefits to blood groups see,
[7] Arthur E. Mourant, FRS; Why are there blood groups?; in Ronald Duncan, Miranda Weston-Smith (editors); The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance; Wallaby/Pocket Books; 1977; pp. 311-316.
Regards,
Tom Cuff
2 Recommendations
Frederick Community College
Hello Pieter Borger ,
One last question and then I'll stop bothering you. You asked, "... I was wondering whether the virus SARS-CoV2 has been isolated, purified and demonstrated to be the cause of COVID19?" My question is how would you know that the virus sample was "purified", i.e., that it was free from contamination from other viruses, PPLO's, prions, etc.? From what I have read about vaccine production (see below), purity has always been a concern. This is one of the reasons that there are special chicken farms raising disease-free chickens to supply the fertilized eggs needed in vaccines, and the reason Hayflick cell lines are also used in some vaccine production.
[1] Paul A. Offit, MD; Vaccinated, One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases; Smithsonian Books; 2007; pp. 52-56 (disease-free chickens) & 82-112 (Leonard Hayflick).
Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful question, and answers.
Regards,
Tom Cuff
1 Recommendation
W+W Research Association
Thomas Cuff A lot of interesting stuff, Tom. Will go through...and think about it.
1 Recommendation
W+W Research Association
Thanks Mazen Krawi , I will go through. All very interesting.
W+W Research Association
Virus Purification is very important in order to get rid of contaminations, such as exosomes, which can be full of RNA. So one better starts out with highly purified virus particles before sequencing and puzzling the pieces together.
2 Recommendations
Edu-Sante Research Inc.
Greetings from Canada Pieter Borger,
I am looking for the answer to your question as well for legal purposes. Thank you for posting it.
The only thing I could find thus far is this and It's highly questionable so far https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.972927v1.full
If I can find others, I will repost here.
W+W Research Association
The answer is: that 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.
2 Recommendations
W+W Research Association
I agree. It is all they have currently. The other symptoms can be anything, from pneumonia to influenza. What do you recommend/suggest?
2 Recommendations
Nanton Nutraceuticals
I believe Arvind Sing is Wrong. Visualization of something resembling a virus inside a cell is no proof till genetic material can be extracted and matched to genetic material aspirated form a diseased tissue.
moreover in this imitativeness article, the authors of the 4 studies purported to identify the virus have admitted to not having isolated it. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
In this CDC document, on page 39 - : Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available..."
Still waiting for the isolation and purification study with subsequent match or prove of infectiousness.
4 Recommendations
Self-employed
Pieter Borger: Could you elaborate on your 5th August-comment? Quote: "The answer is: that SARS-CoV2 exist as a virus (exosome aprticle with an RNA genome) is now scientifically as good as certain." I am looking for more regarding the exosome-theory.
1 Recommendation
University of Palermo
And so, it has bene isolated or not? I am looking for a clear answer, please...
1 Recommendation
W+W Research Association
Giuseppina Crescimanno There are now several papers demonstrating a sort of isolation and with the isolates they are able to induce a sort of Covid19 like symptoms. (see links above). For instance this one:
1 Recommendation
National Health Service
Hi Pieter, it seems that there are some comments from persons who are of the view that viruses are a misidentification of microscopic cellular materials (Dr Stefan Lanka et al) and are seemingly seeking your support for the so called exosome explanation for the presence of apparent viruses in patients. Yet I get the impression that you are not supporting this theory?
Just for clarification.
W+W Research Association
I am not supporting the idea that we are merely looking at exosomen or microscopic debris. What I do hypothesize, however, is that exosomes might be the precursors of viruses. In a similar way that Transposbale Elements are the precursors of retroviruses, and microbes are the precursors of megaviruses. I wrote a book on origin questions including two chapters on viruses. Book can be found here:
3 Recommendations
National Health Service
That is an interesting theory. It is suggested by virologists that virons are a product of dying bacterial cells and that their function is to absorb decaying bacterial matter, as one element of their function. Virons, being viruses and I am sure you know. But not originating from some external source.
National Health Service
Hi Pieter,
The paper that you cited relies on a source of Sars-Cov2 from a W Tan (Under the sub heading Viruses and Cells it states "The SARS-CoV-2 strain HB-01 was provided by W. Tan."). My knowledge of this specialism is limited indeed, but as HB-1 relates to a types of gram negative Bacillus (see below)(https://academic.oup.com/ajcp/article-abstract/59/4/560/1764825?redirectedFrom=fulltext), then this might be significant? I cannot verify from the paper that you cite what they mean by HB-01 but does this suggest that a form of bacteria was utilised in the make up of the sourced Sars-Cov2 in which case is what is being found in the experiments maybe only the bacterium utilised (as we know viruses require a cell in order to replicate) and no attempt to test for the presence of viral material at all. The acceptance that there is viral material present must be taken on trust. It would be a useful exercise to communicate with the lab concerned to ascertain precisely how the virus was actually isolated.
Just raising the question. I have a long way to go to understanding these details as I have a broad medical sciences background so I apologise if I am erring in my rationale here.
National Health Service
Thank you Marco.
Yet viruses do require to be cultured in bacteria, so what I am saying might still be valid.
Independent Researcher
That TEM micrograph in Nature puts the size of this 'corona virus' at approximately 300nm. This seems rather large?
W+W Research Association
Andrew Syred 300 nm is rather large indeed. Coraviruses are around 80-100 nm.
1 Recommendation
W+W Research Association
The comment is from a vocal Darwinian from the Netherlands, but he has no biological merits at all. Het is a cosmologist, and a troll, indeed. He made the comment even before my book was released. My book describes why Darwinian theory is wrong and presents the scientfic data that falsify common descent and natural selection. Further it describes a novel TE-based evolutionary change theory, which does not rely on natural selection. On the side, this theory explains the origin of a subset of RNA viruses.
The genome is prepared to induce variation from within, to facilitate adaptation and speciation. That's my book in a nutshell, and yes, it is heavily anti-Darwin, the most tested and failed theory ever.
W+W Research Association
This week the german government will decide about a reduction of the freedom of their citizens. As an excuse for their measures and intrusions they put forward the "virus".
You find a petition here:
Best,
PB
1 Recommendation
National Health Service
Hi Marko,
Yes I am aware of the oft used Monkey Kidney cells to culture viruses. I posted a paper where bacteria have been used also. No problem just trying to understand this process.
American College of Healthcare Sciences
Hi Pieter,
I find your answers to peoples questions insightful and in line with my thoughts. After reading a number of the replies posted I would like to hear your thoughts on the lack of specifically answering the question of sample purity and the testing of spike proteins using Sanger sequencing. How can we test something like this if it has never been purified (Koch)...more on this below. The outcome of this kind of testing is the basis for everything that is Covid related.
If the foundation of a premise is faulty, then so is the theorized outcome.
Maybe I am missing something, when PCR testing is mentioned to test for SARS-Cov2 , which in my mind is an inappropriate use of the test based on statements made in the past by Kary Mullis, are labs actually testing for the virus and or its components specifically? I don't think so. When I read studies that claim to have purified this virus I don't see any mention of a reference standard, and the testing methods are buried in the back of the study. So, how do they know what they have? Initially samples out of China were contaminated, again...faulty foundation. Is this what labs are using as a reference standard?
Also, when I read any scientific data regarding this viral (?) infection, there is no mention of how to strengthen host immunity. Mutation will always be a factor, as it has been since the beginning of time, whether it be facilitated by man or nature. We have the technology, wouldn't the best approach be to let the body do what it does better than any vaccine, and that is adapt? With assistance.
If I may, the myopic approach that I see being used in the prevention and treatment of this disease using a medical reductionistic approach seems doomed from the start. I would go into detail regarding statements made by ex Pfizer executive Dr. Michael Yeadon, but I won't. Should we not be spending our time looking at this from a more holistic inclusive approach? Or is the vaccine approach to big to fail, is the narrative set in stone? There are hundreds of published studies to validate host supported approaches, and yet very few researchers or medical professionals want to even discuss them.
There is so much more to cover, and I have asked more than one question... Thanks for your insights.
James
2 Recommendations
City of Hope National Medical Center
In regards to PCR testing the CT is of high importance. If one remembers, back when HIV was on the rise, a person could go to one country and test positive and go to another country and test negative, this had to do with the CT.
Interestingly, the WHO, put out a IVD notice in Jan 2021 stating that there were to many false positive results happening and that the CT needed to be lowered from the current CT of 40. I have said that since the beginning that the CT was to high and the primers were not specific enough. Why not use ORF8 or ORF3b for PCR as these is much less cross-reactivity among other corona virus strains?
Additionally, the term "isolating" is not being used properly in the context of science. To isolate a sample, means to purify it of all contaminants, but these papers are using the term "isolating" to simply state they took the patients sample and threw it onto cells to prove evidence of disease. That is incorrect to do so and can not be quantified as a pure sample from a patient.
4 Recommendations
University of the Americas
Hi Pieter
I was also looking for an answer and I couldn´t find something conclusively, could we say that there is no evidence yet although vaccine prototypes have already been developed? No Mind!
Please, if you know about an article than demostrate the correct virus´s isolation let me know as soon as posible.
Nanton Nutraceuticals
The virologist Stephan Lanka, whose challenge that he'd pay 100K to anyone who proved isolation of the measles virus, was upheld by a German court, asserts it hasn't. He and Dr. Tom Cowan assert that the virus was never filtered out of a tissue, not has any genome of such an isolated viral particle been extracted and sequenced. Lanka, himself has properly isolated a viral bacteriophage s part of his PhD work.
Any of the studies whose title suggest isolation hasn't done any filtration to remove the virus from tissue.
Here is a link to a videe discussion of the two. https://www.bitchute.com/video/imBT7vgYEzs5/
statement of virus isolation https://drtomcowan.com/sovi
I attached a typical picture of purported but not real isolation, where as the images you see in this example is how isolated viruses will look under an electron microscope https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0475-6
2 Recommendations
Free practitioner
I am not an expert in epidemiology...therefore I look at experts...:
1 Recommendation
1) Where is an example of the intact virus and an intact virus genome for sars-cov-2?
Why can't it be run on a gel electrophoresis to purify it and demostrate the length, or purify the virus by affinity chromatgraphy using the same protocols as used for exosomes to recover intact virus or protein parts thereof from clinical extracts?
Using monkey cells to "amplify" virus from a clinical extract yields a "monkey virus". Apparently this "monkey SARS-CoV-2" can't be purified either? What's going on? Where's the virus?
That people are getting sick doesn't mean it's because a unique virus, or any virus. The PCR is not calibrated against a virus in a quantifiable way and the primers and probes used on the nasopharyngeal biopsy samples are going to amplify all kinds of overlapping sequences from RNA and DNA of the human cells and the bacteria and fungi also present in the biopsy sample. The PCR in use is totally non-specific which means "covid" is wildly over-diagnosed and the entire virus etiology is caste into doubt.
The average age for dying with a covid diagnosis is higher than the age of the average for longevity; it mysteriously "skips" over youngsters - unlike any other contagion; no evidence of direct person-to-person transmission and the evidence for secondary transmission is weak even based upon symtomology and not the irrational PCR.
By serology for "spike protein antigen", the IFR is 0.15% and that for seasonal influenza is 0.1% - so there's no "plague" either. So what's going is a lot of mass media-generated hysteria and governments using the fake plague as an excuse for snotseas-level shenanagins.
2) What is a "virus stock"? If obtained from a clinical sample added to green monkey cells, the sample is full of RNA and DNA and proteins and exosomes not only from the patient's cells but from the patient's commensal bacteria and fungi. Also added to the cell culture is some kind of broth from cows. So you have zillions of distinct fragments arising from allogeneic and xenogenic sources and plenty of exosomes, if not all exosomes. Administering the supernatant from such a mix is bound to elicit a "host vs graft" response. Ironically, in Pfizer's published experiments to obtain the EUA, none of the Rhesus macaques got sick when this monkey sars junk was stuffed down their airway.
3) Has any of this so-called "spike glycoprotein" been recovered from a patient? Antibodies to recombinant "spike protein" does not prove that the anitgen is "spike protein" made by a human cell.
4) Why can't infectious "virus" be recovered from exhaled breath or from the face masks worn for hours and hours? With all the intense disease-control propaganda, why aren't we seeing demonstrations of how much virus the face gear is collecting?
5) Given the extremely destructive and irrational measures being imposed by governments everywhere including forced experiments en masse with synthetic GMO injections, it is most advised and ethical to conduct direct person-to-person transmission studies using young and healthy volunteers, e.g. soldiers.
1 Recommendation
When challenged with the green monkey cell-grown "SARS", the Rhesus macaques didn't even get sick:
A prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike RNA vaccine is highly immunogenic and prevents lung infection in non-human primates
2 Recommendations
Independent Researcher
What to think of this information https://greatreject.org/laboratories-cant-find-covid-19-in-positive-tests/
Independent Researcher
So be it, Marco van de Weert, but I can't find in this thread dedicated to this subject any validated scientific counter-information.
Independent Researcher
Marco van de Weert, then read the analysis of key articles proposed above by Mathias Grosser
Independent Researcher
Please analyse the content of the articles and the resulting conclusions rather than just the status of the individuals. I personally do not know who Samuel Eckert
KU Leuven
Then, Mendel is not reliable because he was an abbot? Is it not possible to be religious and scientist at the same time? I don't understand. If the results showed in a paper are reproducible and the data are reliable, why don't take in consideration the results and the conclusions?
1 Recommendation
American College of Healthcare Sciences
Food for thought...there is a great deal more information on this topic that has been substantiated and verified regarding this viral material. Just read some of the latest material from MIT and Harvard.
The original samples from China were contaminated and never purified, and there is NO reference standard. I would like to see examples of data that refute this, and what is being stated in this article (below). I don't have the time or desire to get into the middle of this debate because apparently there seems to be no room for discussion. I will say though that just because a scientist does not fall in line with the rest of what is being fed to society by the media, and by those who are using data that is highly conflicted to make their point, just isn't science.
I would recommend that all parties take what is being said here and delve into the topic with an open mind.
There are tons of references on the web to help you find your way. And just because the below article wasn't published in the JAMA (or others) doesn't mean anything, because publishing bias is a 'real thing' and it is happening more and more each year.
You can also access the original article here: https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-digital-theoretical-virus/
Many researchers and practitioners are not speaking out for fear of scholastic retaliation and the loss of their jobs. I have been told this on a number of occasions by friends who are Doctors.
All the best gentlemen,
6 Recommendations
Free practitioner
"All three methods provided evidence that SARS-CoV-2 sequences can be integrated into the genome of the host cell. […] These results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed, and the resulting DNA could be integrated into the genome of the host cell.”
“If integration and expression of viral RNA are fairly common, reliance on extremely sensitive PCR tests to determine the effect of treatments on viral replication and viral load may not always reflect the ability of the treatment to fully suppress viral replication because the PCR assays may detect viral transcripts that derive from viral DNA sequences that have been stably integrated into the genome rather than infectious virus.”
Zhang, Liguo et al. (2021). Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States.
2 Recommendations
Free practitioner
CDC itself admits to having no identifiable virus
Deeply hidden in an official document on Covid-19, the CDC ruefully admitted as early as summer 2020 that it does not have a measurable virus: ‘As no quantified (= measured) isolated virus objects of 2019-nCoV are available at this time…’ (page 39 of the ‘CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel’ (July 13) In other words, the CDC, as one of THE leading medical authorities in the world, could not, and still cannot, demonstrate a virus.
About the for this purpose scientifically totally debunked, but still shamelessly abused PCR test, the CDC wrote under the heading ‘limitations’: ‘The detection of viral RNA cannot demonstrate the presence of an infectious virus, or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent of clinical symptoms.’ And in addition: ‘This test cannot exclude other diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.’
In other words, we cannot prove that the people who get sick and are hospitalized, and very occasionally die, were sickened by a new coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, nor can we prove that it caused them to develop a new disease called ‘Covid-19.’ It could just as easily be a different virus and a different disease. (And since all the symptoms, including severe pneumonia, correspond seamlessly to what flu can cause historically in vulnerable people… ‘if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck’.
Reward of $265,000 for demonstrating coronavirus
Earlier this year, Samuel Eckert’s German Team and the Isolate Truth Fund pledged a reward of at least $265,000 for any scientist who can provide incontrovertible proof that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated and therefore exists. They too pointed out that not one lab in the world has yet been able to isolate this corona virus.
Yes, systems scientists claim they have, but this ‘isolation’ consists only of a sample from the human body, which is a ‘soup’ full of different kinds of cells, remains of viruses, bacteria, et cetera. With the help of (toxic) chemicals one then searches for some (residual) particles that may indicate a virus that once existed or may still exist, after which this is designated as ‘evidence’.
4 Recommendations
- Similar - and more well-devloped case - case for comparison:
- 10 May 2017
Extracellular Vesicles Carry HIV Env and Facilitate Hiv Infection of Human Lymphoid Tissue
- Anush Arakelyan, Wendy Fitzgerald, Sonia Zicari, Christophe Vanpouille & Leonid Margolis
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01739-8
- "In these experiments, our analysis was restricted to EVs that carry CD81 and either CD45 or AChE and thus readily distinguishable from virions. It is reasonable to assume that there are other EVs, CD45-negative and AChE-negative, that carry gp120 and may affect viral infection. Earlier it was reported that EVs that carry Nef 9, 33, gag34 and trans activation elements35 as well as cellular proteins36 affect HIV infection.
- Env-carrying EVs identified in the present analysis can be classified either as EVs or as defective (non-infectious) viruses and can be part of the population of defective HIV that is known to constitute more than 95% of HIV virions in vivo 37. In general, Env-carrying EVs seem to be similar to specific fractions of defective HIV-1 virions since CD45- and AChE-positive EVs carrying gp120 do not carry a significant amount of p24.
- Do EVs, which seem to be a part of HIV preparations, affect viral infection? We addressed this question by inoculating human lymphoid tissue ex vivo with viral suspension depleted of specific EVs. Unfortunately, obvious experiments with two pure fractions of individual HIV virions and individual EVs, mixed in different proportions and tested for infectivity are not feasible in part because there are no reliable methods for total separation of these entities (at least, the viral fractions seem to be contaminated with EVs), and moreover, as mentioned above, the difference between non-infectious virions and Env-positive EVs is purely semantic."
- [...]
- "In summary, our work demonstrates that HIV-infected cells release not only virions but also EVs and that some EVs carry viral Env making them indistinguishable not only physically but also semantically from virions, in particular from those that are defective and are not capable of replication. However these EVs that carry Env identified here facilitate HIV infection and thus may constitute a new target for anti-viral strategy."
1 Recommendation
Psychiatrist, Tokyo Japan. Meguro Counseling Center
This is a DYI investigation, while some papers I've seen here and on the net take months to write, this research only took a few minutes and was one sentence long:
Question to BEI Resources, largest Covid Isolate Bio-Tech Co near DC:
----------------------------------------
I wonder, can these cell lysates be purified for virus by a lab, and if so is there a paper on such, if not, is that too difficult to do and if so why?
Answer:
----------------------------------------
None of these products are really purified. Each of the virus strains are provided as cell lysate and supernatant. They definitely will not have been separated into density gradients and this is not something we would have tested for during the course of the normal QC and Authentication testing for these items.
BEI Resources
Customer/Technical Services
Administered by ATCC
10801 University Blvd
Manassas Virginia, 20110-2209
Email: Contact@BEIResources.org
Phone: 800-359-7370
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simple question and simple answer that should be the "final solution" to end this thread if not the mess we are in.
American College of Healthcare Sciences
You can't isolate something that has no reference standard, what is called 'covid' is based on modeling not on actual material. The material that was derived from China was a contaminated sample and never purified.
The 'Gold standard' PCR test is a test that was never meant to be used for diagnostic purposes and can not distinguish one type of sample from another. The designer of the test has stated many times in no uncertain terms...that the PCR test should not be used the way it is being used. It provides inaccurate results. Even the CDC has stated that this test is a joke and can not differentiate between the Flu and Covid.
The questions that you are asking are legitimate and should be looked into. However, since there is no way to make any money from an alternate non-pharma thought process, what is going on can be classified as delusional psychosis on a massive scale. Another term that comes to mind is illusionary truth effect (is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure). People hear or repeat the same thing over and over again until it becomes their truth. Or they are just trying to hold onto their jobs. It happens in politics all the time.
I will leave it at this, there is a lot that needs to be looked into e.g. since there is a pharma/nutritional protocol that is over 90% effective in treating this illness, why isn't it being used? There are dozens of studies (and real world applications) that show this pharma/nutrition protocol works and yet when anyone brings it up, they are classified as an anti-vaxxer, or they are claimed to be spreading misinformation.
Pfizer alone has made over 33 billion $ on this genetic experiment, and that is just one company. The death and side effect toll keeps rising (VAERS), so, you keep asking those great questions, and if people tell you this so called vax program is safe, ask them for the unbiased 3rd party (no conflict of interest) data to support their position.
There is so much more that can be said, I just wish more people were critical thinkers like you.
3 Recommendations
SeroClea
It has never been isolated or purified to homogeneity even though there are methods to do it. Furthermore, in the absence of definitive data all we have are correlations between PCR data on a hypothetical virus and clinical symptoms that, while occasionally severe and/or deadly, are not specific to Covid.
It all has a "bad smell".....
2 Recommendations
Similar questions and discussions
COVID-19: Does the innate immune system fights the infection (so there is no production of antibodies) in most cases?
Dear colleques, I would like your feedback on this:
COVID-19 test: The antibody-based test does not work when the innate immune system fights the infection
Søren Ventegodt, MD, MMedSci, EU-MSc-CAM
Quality-of-Life Research Center, Copenhagen and Research Clinic for Holistic Medicine, Psychology, and Sexology, Copenhagen, Denmark
Correspondence: Søren Ventegodt, MD, MMedSci, EU-MSc-CAM, Quality-of-Life Research Center, Schlegels Allé 4, 5tv, 1807 Frb C, Copenhagen, Denmark. Email: ventegodt@livskvalitet.org
Introduction
There are two lines of immunological defense in the vertebrate immune system: The innate and adaptive immune system. These two are related, the innate being the evolutionary oldest, and the functional basis of the adaptive immune system. The innate immune system is able to handle small and local infections. A small bolus of Corona COVID-19 virus, say about 20 viral units, in small, airborne drops from the breath of a healthy infected person, is normally handled without any symptoms. Still this gives immunological learning and immunity. If the innate immune system is handling the small boluses of virus, there is no antibodies to detect. This means that only the people who have a weak innate immune system will have a symptomatic infection which calls for the second line of the immune defense, the adaptive immune system response with antibodies. It is therefore very likely that every single person living in a city is being infected with COVID-19. Therefore, the number of infected people are likely to be 100 times larger than estimated from random population tests testing for Corona (inclusive COVID-19) using antibody tests. Therefore, all the numbers of infection fatality rates (IFR) we are collecting these days from all countries must be set 100 times lover than estimated by World Health Organization and other authorities using the present Corona test to estimate the mortality of COVID-19. Furthermore, if we include the resent findings from large autopsy studies of people who died with COVID-19 showing that there are no people dying from COVID-19, we are forced to set IFR=0.
It is well known to all immunologists that there are two lines of immunological defense in the vertebrate immune system: The innate and adaptive immune system (1-4). It is also well known how these two are related, the innate being the evolutionary oldest, and the functional basis of the adaptive immune system.
The innate immune system in COVID-19
The innate immune system is able to handle small and local infections, so if you have a small bolus of virus, say about 20 viral units in small, airborne drops from the breath of a healthy infected person, this is normally handled without any symptoms (1-5). Still it seems to give immunological learning as the about 100 different viruses, that constantly attacks the human airways in new forms because of mutations are easily handled.
In COVID-19 this understanding is essential, as it explains how a population of mammals can become immune to the hundreds of viruses they co-evolve with (5). While this seems to be basic textbook knowledge for immunologists it seems to be unknown to the health authorities that these days want to base the number of infected people on antibody tests. If the innate immune system is handling the small boluses of virus, there is no antibodies to find (1-5). This means that only the people who have a weak innate immune system will have a symptomatic infection which calls for the second line of immune defense, the adaptive immune system response with antibodies (1-5).
It means that what you find with the test for COVID-19 with antibodies is the number of people in the population that either have a weak innate immune system, or who got a massive amount of virus so that the innate immune system could not handle it.
The IFRs are calculated to orders (100 times) to large everywhere because of this error
The consequence of this is that the number of COVID-19 infected is counted 100 times to small and the infection mortality rate (IFR) is calculated 100 times to large.
The IFR is the ratio: people dead by COVID-19/people infected by COVID-19. In estimating this number it is worth remembering that the people who have specialized in autopsies of people dying with COVID-19, like professor Klaus Püschel, have concluded that nobody is actually dying from COVID-19 (6).
Combining the likelihood that every single person living in a city together with other people is getting infected with COVID-19 as healthy infected people are spreading the small drops with small amounts of viruses effectively, and the fact that the experts doing autopsies of the dead people testing positive for COVID-19 are not finding anybody dying from COVID-19, we are forced to set the IMF=0.
Conclusions
Translated to our understanding, COVID-19 is not deadly at all. Nobody dies from an infection with COVID-19, because everybody is already immune, due to countless exposures to Corona virus in the past. Because the infection was symptomless (subclinical) and handled without problems by our innate immune system, we did not notice, and thus we do not realize that we are immune. Thus the fear of COVID-19, and all the measures to prevent the infection, are totally and absolutely without any scientific foundation and justification.
Related Publications
A pandemia ocasionada pelo SARS-COV-2 atravessou todos os contextos sociais, não desviando de nenhuma extensão da vida coletiva ou individual e repercutindo no âmbito da saúde mental. Como medida de controle da propagação do vírus, diversos países adotaram o distanciamento social, acarretando consequências psicológicas decorrentes da privação socia...
A COVID-19, doença pandêmica, não possui sua patogenia completamente esclarecida embora se trate de uma infecção polissistêmica que pode inclusive apresentar manifestações orais, devido à capacidade do vírus SARS-CoV-2 se ligar a enzima conversora de angiotensina 2 (ACE-2). A presente revisão integrativa da literatura tem como objetivo identificar...
Introdução: A infecção pelo Sars-Cov-2, causador da COVID-19, durante a gestação está intrinsicamente associada a um maior risco de complicações trombóticas, uma vez que o vírus e a própria fisiologia da gestação são responsáveis por causar alterações hematológicas relacionadas principalmente a um estado de hipercoagulabilidade. Apesar da gestação...