The ‘pandemic’ continues to be perpetuated the same way it was born; steeped in ignorance, veiled by deception, fueled with fear, and driven by unscientific guesswork and the subjective, ever changing declarations of the ‘experts’, yet consistently used each and every day to advance a very specific set of pre-planned, technocratic political and pharmaceutical agendas - “ID2030,” “The Great Reset,” the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” institution of the biosecurity state, and global mandatory vaccination.
That none of the ‘pandemic’ measures relentlessly shoved down the public’s throat for the past two years have brought this ‘pandemic’ to an end is proof enough that the ‘War on Covid-19’, like every other government ‘war’ on anything, has been a complete and utter failure, if ever the goal was actually to ‘end the pandemic once and for all’, as we have consistently been told the various measures would accomplish, lately in regards to the injections, although it turns out even that is turning into a perpetual state of endless ‘waves’ of ‘boosters’, as the Israeli coronavirus czar announced last month. Just like the ‘war on drugs’ and the ‘war on terror’, this war on the “invisible enemy” has totally failed to ‘defeat the enemy’ and ‘vanquish the virus’ as we were assured it would do, while simultaneously working wondrously as the mechanism by which to advance the political agendas of those in power and remove the freedoms of humanity; and it has also predictably turned into a perpetual affair, with “15 days to slow the spread” having now morphed into a “permanent pandemic.”
In a very real sense, we are in much the very same place we were in when this whole ordeal began, now in a ‘Brave New World’ that hardly resembles pre-Covid life, but no closer to ‘victory’ against the ‘invisible enemy’ as we were on the day this ‘War on Covid-19’ was first declared.
With the rise of the ‘Delta variant pandemic’ now driving the establishment Covid narrative for the past several months, the truth of our current reality remains shrouded by dark clouds of convoluted propaganda, as it ever has since the birth of the age of ‘Covid19’. History repeats itself, as the proverb goes, and the best way to understand the present is often to take a good look into the past; and so it is that the best way to clearly see the present reality as it truly is may just be to understand the truth of how this whole Covid Clown World was born - with the alleged emergence of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, first dubbed ‘2019-nCov’, then officially named ‘SARS-CoV2’, and almost immediately reported to be the known cause of a new disease we all know as ‘Covid19’.
Because if that so-called novel ‘virus’ was never truly identified as such and actually proven to exist, it makes little sense that any of the so-called ‘variants’ could possibly be identified and tracked, including the infamous ‘Delta’, and would cast the entire Covid narrative into a state of disarray. In other words, if the ‘virus’ was never isolated, how on earth was anyone able to identify ‘Delta’ and all the other emerging ‘variants of concern’?
As it is, the ‘Delta pandemic’ narrative is admittedly based almost exclusively upon guesswork, with the CDC only positively ‘identifying’ a few ‘Delta’ cases across the country, the total ‘Delta’ case load merely a theoretical projection based upon those select few samples tested by the CDC.
The entire ‘Delta’ narrative, then, even if the variant exists as such, is a colossal fraud of epic proportions designed to fearmonger the public into submission, an entirely theoretical ‘pandemic’ based not upon scientific data but rather the assumptions and projections of those who are merely guessing. This is the endlessly repeating pattern upon which the entire ‘Covid19’ narrative and associated pandemic(s) rest(s).
Interestingly, the alleged emergence of all the current ‘variants of concern’ followed the launch of the global vaccination campaign, indicating that if this variant narrative holds any water at all, then these variants are likely being driven by vaccination, and not the other way around as the propagandists who manufactured the mythical ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ paint the picture, blaming “unvaccinated bodies” for these so-called disease-driving virus mutations.
That the injection campaign would naturally be driving the emergence of any new “vaccine resistant” variants including ‘Delta’, is a notion completely backed up by valid scientific principles which were widely accepted within medical establishment circles up until the day they suddenly became inconvenient to those advancing the agenda; this tossing of previously accepted scientific principles and research out the window whenever any such science contradicts the establishment narrative being another prominent feature of this new age of Covid, leading to it being widely dubbed ‘Covid Clown World’.
A perfect example of this type of unscientific clown show nonsense can be seen in the orchestrated attempt to ignore, discount and even disappear natural immunity from the scientific equation altogether, despite the scientific evidence for natural immunity being overwhelming, as I documented in my comprehensive post on this important subject.
This demonstrates, from within the establishment’s own official virus narrative, the scale of systematic deception, fraud, and science denial that those using this ‘pandemic’ to advance their own agendas are willing to employ to that end, as well as the downright criminal nature of the campaigns being advanced to achieve their intended outcomes.
There is no reason then, when dealing with such a level of systemic fraud and deception, to imagine that those perpetrating it would not go so far as to lie about the very nature and origin of ‘Covid19’ in order to engineer a pandemic out of thin air by convincing the world to run scared from a phantom virus that doesn’t even exist.
The evidence that this ‘pandemic’ was at least to some degree planned in advance is overwhelming, and having extensively covered much of this evidence in previous posts (1, 2, 3), and being this is not the primary focus of this particular investigation, it is both unnecessary and entirely infeasible to list the many proofs that this ‘pandemic’ is in fact to some degree very much a Plandemic.
This understanding is a key step on the journey to uncover the truth of this whole mess, however, whatever that may be. One of the best comprehensive pieces covering the mountain of evidence leading to this natural conclusion is Corey Lynn’s 5-part series, “COVID-19,” undoubtedly one of the most extensive reports on the endless lies and propaganda used to sell the Covid ‘pandemic’ illusion, which I highly recommend checking out for those who may have not yet seen it.
Concerning this view of things, one theory is that the ‘virus’ was engineered in a Bioweapons lab in Wuhan or Fort Dietrich, and from there intentionally released. There is certainly no shortage of evidence supporting this possibility. Another theory is that the so-called outbreak was more or less organic, caused by a naturally occurring virus or accidental lab leak, the latter of which admittedly occurs on a regular basis at Fort Dietrich in regards to all sorts of other pathogens. In this scenario, those seeking to roll out a pre-planned ‘pandemic’ response to advance their agenda simply capitalized on the opportunity they were presented with, turning a relatively minor outbreak into an overblown global ‘pandemic’ through systematic over-inflation of case counts, fearmongering and a relentless, inherently deceptive propaganda campaign.
A third theory, and certainly the most contentious of them all, is that there is in fact no novel coronavirus haunting us at all, ‘SARS-CoV2’ is a completely fabricated invention, and the ‘pandemic’ was therefore manufactured out of thin air. At the very least, the evidence that this ‘virus’ hasn’t been proven to exist, or to be the cause of what is being called Covid-19 for that matter, is overwhelming, and the focus of this investigative series.
In part 1, we already saw that the mysterious ‘disappearance’ of the flu, through misdiagnosis of influenza and other respiratory disease patients as Covid ‘cases’, could easily account for a large chunk of ‘Covid19’ statistics, with the rest easily accounted for by the number of ‘asymptomatic infections’ (those who are not sick at all, making up the majority of ‘cases’), other coronaviruses like the common cold being diagnosed as ‘Covid19’ (a large number of ‘cases’ are mild, showing cold-like symptoms), and misattributing deaths with clear alternative causes to Covid, which has been well documented on many occasions. That this type of scenario is not only entirely possible but a historical reality, was also documented, with the 2007 ‘epidemic that wasn’t’ far from being a single isolated historical pseudo epidemic, all thanks to “faith” in the PCR test, as put by the NYT.
Now we will dive into the plethora of evidence suggesting that the medical establishment has for two years now been chasing a phantom virus, as there is a complete and utter lack of evidence for the existence of ‘SARS-CoV2’.
Isolation, the scientific gold standard of virus identification
Isolation has been accepted as the scientific gold standard of virus identification for a good century, and to this day remains the only scientifically valid means by which to positively identify and conclusively prove the existence of a new virus.
This process of virus isolation has been successfully employed by virologists for decades, and is described in detail in the SOVI document (“Statement on Virus Isolation”) authored by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD., Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD., and Dr. Sally Fallen Morell, MA.. After taking samples from a number of patients with the unique and specific symptoms that characterize the illness in question, and, ”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,” the statement adds, has been “done for decades to isolate bacteriophages and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, and allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.”
Isolation, or particle purification, is an essential prerequisite for proving the existence of a virus, “and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus,” authors of a widely censored OffGuardian piece explain, “as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende.”
A process of filtration was used by the Dutch microbiologist Beijerinck, sometimes credited as the father of virology, to establish the existence of the tobacco mosaic virus as a disease-causing agent, documented in his paper published in 1898, although the filtered virus particles would not be identified as such until several decades later when they would become visible under more advanced microscopes. Filtration was similarly used to isolate the influenza virus for the first time, and this bacteriologically sterile filtrate containing the ‘virus’ was then shown to cause disease in ferrets, findings that were published in the Lancet in 1933.
Centrifugation, on the other hand, utilizes a process known as zonal separation, in which the virus is suspended in a biologically inert substrate such as sucrose and flung at high speeds to separate particles by density.
The end result of the isolation process must necessarily be purified virus particles that have been separated from all contaminates and any other genetic material initially embedded in the sample, at which point the purified isolate can be identified as a new (or previously existent) virus under electron microscope, and then complete end-to-end genetic sequencing of the purified particles, or virions can be performed. This is the only process that can definitively establish the existence and identify (full genome sequence) of a new virus; anything less is simply guesswork.
‘They didn’t isolate the virus’: WHO’s role in engineering the Plandemic based on blind faith in imaginary ‘virus’ - ‘SARS-CoV2’ a computer-generated pseudo-virus
However, in a short NBC interview featured in news segment about the origin of the virus broadcast on the network’s January 23, 2021 Nightly News, leading epidemiologist of the Chinese CDC, Dr. Wu Zunyou, stated: “They didn’t isolate the virus, that’s the issue.”
The revealing statement was his answer to the question of why the Chinese authorities hadn’t released to the world all of the data they had on the virus, and he clearly seems to be referring to the Chinese scientists who took the very first samples from sick Pneumonia patients in Wuhan, and later released the genome sequence that would from that point forward be identified as the original strain of the ‘virus’, or the Wuhan strain. Only problem, the Chinese CDC is publicly admitting that ‘virus’ was never actually isolated. When he was then asked: “What about animal samples,” he replied: “It doesn’t tell you anything, if they only tested positive,” adding: “I do not suspect it is coming from what we originally thought.”
Interestingly, NBC edited the YouTube version of the segment to remove the clarifying clause of his answer to the second question, “if they only tested positive,” probably due to the implications of the masses connecting the dots and realizing that if positive tests are meaningless without an isolated virus to detect, and the virus hasn’t been isolated, then we’re all being scammed by the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against the human race.
This admission that the virus wasn’t isolated coming from the Chinese CDC is particularly noteworthy, given that the Chinese CDC actively participated in the collection of samples and associated investigation of Pneumonia patients “epidemiologically linked” to the Wuhan seafood market, the patient specimens were specifically “tested by the Chinese CDC,” and the widely cited Chinese study that alleged ‘isolation’ - first published on February 20 - was also a direct “report [of] the results of this [CDC] investigation.” The Chinese CDC would know as good as anyone if the Chinese researchers alleging isolation actually isolated the virus or not, and all the available evidence indicates that they did not.
That this is the case is evidenced in the original Drosten-Corman study - Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR - which, after summarizing how the “viral genome sequence” being used by researchers was publicly released by China and made available to the public on January 10, openly stated:
In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community.
As of January 22, 2020, there were admittedly no virus isolates available to the international health community, specifically those responsible for developing the universally deployed PCR tests allegedly designed to “detect” the ‘virus’. And so it was that the falsely called diagnostic kits, although labelled with various disclaimers indicating otherwise, such as, for example: “Not for use in diagnostic procedures,” became the ‘gold standard’ of ‘COVID-19’ diagnosis, despite the complete absence of any actual gold standard for determining accuracy and specificity of the test without an isolated virus sample to compare test results against.
The WHO also reportedly “stated in January 2020 that it did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of 2019-nCoV.” That no such details confirming virus isolation or actual virus isolate samples were in their possession is evidenced by the fact that nothing of the sort was shared with the scientists put in charge of developing the ‘diagnostic’ kits upon special request by the WHO (Christian Drosten and associates); tests which were subsequently delivered to WHO for international use, and would set the global standard of ‘virus’ ‘detection’ and Covid ‘diagnosis’ for the duration of the very ‘pandemic’ illusion of which they would become a critical tool in the manufacturing and perpetuation of, as has since become abundantly clear.
At the same time, although no virus isolates were made available to researchers, the WHO nevertheless claimed as a matter of fact that the virus had been isolated, and the genetic sequence of that novel coronavirus subsequently shared, in their “Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1”:
• The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020.
• On 12 January 2020, China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.
As will be demonstrated, that claim is false; there was in fact no virus ever isolated in China, and by the time the Chinese CDC made the quiet admission, the authors of the key Chinese study purporting to do so had already admitted the same. That this genetic sequence was shared for the express purpose of developing diagnostic kits is important, for if the PCR tests were developed to detect a genetic sequence that did not originate from an isolated virus specimen taken directly from a patient, but rather an artificially constructed sequence based on RNA fragments assumed to be those of a novel virus thought to resemble the original SARS virus, then the whole world is testing for a phantom virus that may well not exist. And indeed, this is exactly what the tests were developed to do, as described by the authors of the study establishing and validating the PCR detection protocol themselves:
We report on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], **designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
The Drosten study was fatally flawed in a more ways than one, particularly alarming given it would lay the groundwork for all subsequent coronavirus research and establish the global PCR ‘diagnostic’ testing standard. A subsequent study was published - External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results - highlighting “ten fatal problems” with the paper, and its submission for peer-review included a retraction request. To this day, it would appear, Eurosurveillance has still yet to retract the incredibly flawed paper, although it has said it is under review and would make a decision by the end of 2020.
Chief among the problems was the published PCR protocol for ‘SARS-CoV2’ detection:
The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable
scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.
Specifically, the 22 study authors note:
The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus
experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China, because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors. To date no validation has been performed by the authorship based on isolated SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full length RNA thereof.
[...]
Nevertheless these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 (Hereafter named SARS-CoV-1) as both are beta-coronaviruses … in short, a design relying merely on close genetic relatives does not fulfill the aim for a “robust diagnostic test” as cross reactivity and therefore false-positive results will inevitably occur. Validation was only done in regards to in silico(theoretical) sequences and within the laboratory-setting, and not as required for in-vitro diagnostics with isolated genomic viral RNA. This very fact hasn’t changed even after 10 months of introduction of the test into routine diagnostics.
Without virus isolates or patient samples, and based upon the presumption that the yet to be isolated ‘virus’ was closely related to the original SARS, the ‘virus’ the PCR tests would from that day forth begin to ‘detect’ in patients all around the world was but some version of a synthetically manufactured genetic sequence, in other words an entirely computer-generated genome sequence. It could not be otherwise; there were no samples or virus isolates available for their use from which to even extract partial RNA strands or fragments said to be viral RNA, as would later be done. The implications of this assumption and subsequent ‘validation’ of PCR ‘specificity’ are as far reaching as the WHO claiming that this ‘virus’ had been isolated and positively identified as the cause of disease labelled ‘Covid19’ without producing a single shred of credible evidence to substantiate the claim.
The WHO said they isolated the virus, but no virus isolate was actually made available to confirm these claims, and the Chinese CDC later asserts that “they didn’t isolate the virus, that’s the issue,” and that is indeed an issue, a really, really big issue.
There was the claim that a virus had been isolated, but there was no virus isolate to prove it.
Anyone can say their friend saw a unicorn in their front yard, they can swear that they saw a photo of it themselves, heck, they can even say they saw it themselves and point to a piece of a horn they claim came from the unicorn, but if they can’t point to the photograph of the unicorn and personally show it to you, and instead draw you a picture of a unicorn and assure you that’s what the unicorn that definitely exists looks like, promising you that their friend really has a genuine original photograph to prove it and insists that you believe the unicorn is real, there’s not much of a chance you’re gonna take them very seriously. In fact you’d probably laugh out loud, and dismiss the absurd claim out of hand.
Yet that’s exactly how this whole Plandemic began. The WHO pointed to that drawing and told the world it came from a genuine photograph of a real live unicorn, and the world actually took WHO seriously.
And so the official declaration of the existence of this new ‘virus’ was made, even before patient samples, from which the alleged virus could then be independently isolated and confirmed to exist, became available to the international health community. Trust the WHO, the world thought, but the WHO was lying, or at the very least incredibly misinformed; and so was the ‘pandemic’ that would change history born of blind faith in the baseless claims of the Gates-sponsored organization that would from that day forth help lead the way into the technocratic Covid1984 future that lay ahead.
And yes, Bill Gates also sponsored a simulation of a global pandemic started by a novel coronavirus just three months earlier (Event 201), and yes, the US military also hosted a pandemic war game exercise pretty much simulating the very same scenario that very same month (Crimson Contagion); and yes, both of those simulations intimated a number of the ‘pandemic’ responses that would become key components of the top-down package of Convid measures tyranny imposed upon the global population, and the ensuing ‘pandemic’ would lead to Gates’ dream for global vaccination becoming a reality, but let’s not get too far off point here. There’s a new virus, the WHO said, but no virus isolate to prove it, as they pointed to a single computer-generated genome sequence that would turn the recently simulated potential planned future into a present reality.
This not only reveals that there was an agenda underfoot, an agenda to birth a global pandemic narrative even before proof of the existence of the ‘virus’ allegedly responsible for the emergence of this ‘pandemic’ ever surfaced, but that genome sequences identified by the ‘experts’ as virus strains and pointed to as novel ‘virus’ can be created without first isolating virus, or even obtaining a single patient sample.
The hunt for ‘SARS-CoV2’. Does anybody have a virus isolate?
So the ‘virus’ wasn’t initially isolated as alleged, at least there’s no proof of such, with no virus isolate available for anyone to examine, but that certainly doesn’t mean the ‘virus’, if it existed, couldn’t later be isolated from patient samples outside of China and the resulting virus isolates made available; and there are indeed a number of studies that have since purported to do so. The only question, then, is did they?
One such example is a CDC study published in June, 2020 - Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States - in which the authors claimed: “We isolated virus,” of a patient sample obtained on January 20, 2020, and then subsequently “made the virus isolate available to the public health community by depositing it into 2 virus reagent repositories.” Taken at face value, these statements certainly appear to indicate that the virus has been isolated and we now have that once missing virus isolate, and in fact had it all the way back at the beginning of February, 2020.
And yet a CDC document published months later in July unambiguously stated that “no virus isolates are currently available,” begging the honest researcher to question just how exactly it could be that the “virus isolate” which had long been “made available” by the CDC following its alleged isolation was suddenly not available to the very same CDC five months later, calling into question the veracity of the claim that the CDC researchers actually “isolated virus.”
The FDA-published PCR test “Instructions for Use,” a CDC document entitled - “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” - states in the July 13, 2020 publication (originally on page 39, then moved to page 42 in a December update) that:
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…
This quiet admission reveals that the PCR tests allegedly designed to detect the ‘virus’ are not being used to identify the actual genetic sequence of an allegedly isolated ‘virus’, but rather stocks of “full length RNA” sequences that were instead transcribed, or synthetically engineered - using either the original computer-generated Drosten sequences or a similar synthetic creation based upon the original Wuhan strain sequence and built from RNA fragments extracted from cultured genetic material taken from patient samples that were never isolated or purified.
To summarize, as broken down by Jon Rappaport:
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.
This lack of an isolated virus specimen sure would help to explain the following disclaimer found elsewhere in the same document: “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms“.
And also: “This test can not rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral agents.”
There will of course be those who argue that somehow these words do not mean what they say, do not imply there is actually no virus isolate available, and that they are somehow capable of synthetically producing an RNA sequence identical to the RNA sequence of a virus they haven’t yet isolated.
An ‘expert’ featured by a Reuters ‘fact-check’ explains:
“To calculate the limit of detection of an RT-PCR assay, you need to have a known quantity of virus to extract genetic material (RNA) from, or alternatively a known quantity of RNA identical to that carried by the virus ”, de Silva said.
But instead of using a known quantity of virus, they opted to use a known quantity of synthetically produced RNA, and even the fact-checkers are forced to admit that the tests are calibrated to detect a synthetically engineered RNA sequence that did not come from a virus isolate taken directly from a patient.
In this case, the CDC have used ‘transcribed’ RNA as the positive control - which means they used synthetically produced genetic material identical to that carried by the virus.
But this could only be known to be identical to that carried by the virus if they had first isolated the virus, and then performed end-to-end genetic sequencing of the isolated virus particles. So why did they do this again, if there really was a quantitative virus isolate available?
According to de Silva, one reason for using transcribed RNA would have been that at the time of set up, not many standardised and quantified viral stocks would have been available to extract viral RNA from.
Right, that makes sense, because the CDC document said there were ‘not many’ quantified virus isolates available... Wait, that’s right, it actually said there was “no quantified virus isolates available,” none, zero, zilch, nada; implying that if there had been even just one single one, they would have used it, and they should know, their own scientists said they made one available, and if it is available to anyone, it should surely be available to them. But not to worry, there’s hundreds of such virus stocks now, we are assured, so even if they were a little short back then (or nonexistent), this “is no reason to question the existence of SARS-CoV-2.”
There are now hundreds of stocks of cultured SARS-CoV-2 in laboratories around the world”, he said.
Notice what he didn’t say, though, that there were hundreds of stocks of purified or isolated SARS-CoV2 samples, because there aren’t any, because the virus hasn’t been isolated. He rather points to the stocks of “cultured SARS-CoV-2” all over the world, and you can culture ‘virus’ all you want, but until you have isolated and purified it, all you have is cultured genetic material that may or may not contain virus which in turn may or may not be ‘SARS-CoV2’. As it is, the CDC’s not the only one who can’t seem to get their hands on an actual virus isolate.
UK MHRA, which approved the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ for use in England, clearly stated in email correspondence with independent journalist and Hive blogger Frances Leader that, concerning the ‘virus’ template used for manufacture of the Pfizer injection, and I quote: “The DNA template used does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person.” Rather, “The DNA template ... was generated via a combination of gene synthesis and recombinant DNA technology,” an admission which reveals that neither was there an isolated virus specimen available to Pfizer at the time the company developed and manufactured their so-called coronavirus ‘vaccine’.
But hey, maybe Pfizer opted not to use the virus itself for its injection template, even though that’s the only way an actual vaccine can be made, simply because the stocks of actual virus isolates were in such short supply back then, and not because there actually weren’t any available. Presumably there was also a shortage of isolated virus specimen available to all of the other coronavirus ‘vaccine’ manufacturers at the time as well, despite the public being told there was definitely isolated virus out there somewhere...
This evidence can be found in documented email correspondence between UK MHRA and Frances Leader, and proves, as Frances Leader writes, that the Pfizer injection “has been created from a computer generated genomic sequence & not one isolated from an infected person, either in Wuhan or anywhere else in the world since.” Like the genome sequence the PCR tests have been calibrated to detect, the DNA template for the Pfizer injection was similarly a computer-engineered synthetic creation.
This should be terribly alarming to anyone who knows anything about how real vaccines are actually designed to work, using either fragments of the actual virus itself or a blueprint for creating those fragments, in this case the ‘SARS-CoV2’ spike protein, although there is no way to know with certainty if this toxic spike protein is in fact the spike protein of the phantom novel coronavirus, or just the spike protein of the original SARS virus upon which these sequences were built, or perhaps an entirely man-made creation. Without a virus isolate to work with, it’s all guesswork, or has nothing at all to do with ‘protection’ from a ‘virus’ at all. This would certainly help to explain the wildly ineffective nature of these experimental injections, and also why the ‘efficacy’ standard in clinical trials was only ever a reduction of mild symptoms and not production of actual ‘immunity’ against the ‘virus’.
As for that elusive virus isolate, as of December 1, 2020, it was still not available to the CDC, although at some point in 2021 the statement was moved to page 40 and altered, as reflected in the most recently updated July 21, 2021 version of the document, to read: “no quantified virus isolates ... were available at the time the test was developed and this study conducted,” which appears to imply that such an isolated virus specimen may have finally been made available to the CDC, but also reveals that if this is the case, the PCR tests are nonetheless still testing for presence of the originally transcribed RNA sequence or some version thereof that did not originate from an isolated, purified virus specimen, as it is still clearly stated in the most current PCR “Instructions for Use.”
Furthermore, upon inquiry, the authors of a number of the early studies claiming to isolate the virus admitted that they did not in fact do so. Their answers were provided to journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, and subsequently published by Off Guardian on June 27, 2020:
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, 2020Answer: “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.”
Although some of the researchers use the term ‘isolation’ in their papers, “the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process,” as we will see, and the term in these cases is being misused and grossly misunderstood by the public.
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
The admission from an author of the last listed study is particularly noteworthy, given that it quickly became the cornerstone study upon which all future coronavirus research would be based. We have here an author of the most important and widely cited study alleging initial isolation of the original Wuhan strain of the virus in China, which gave the world the genetic sequence upon which all future sequencing from that point forward would be based, including the manufactured Drosten sequence, acknowledging that they never purified the particles being passed off as ‘SARS-CoV2’ and never in fact had in their possession an isolated virus sample. The study itself also concedes:
“Further development of accurate and rapid methods to identify unknown respiratory pathogens is still needed … our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates.”
This statement is remarkable, coming from the first researchers claiming to have identified the phantom virus, for here they acknowledge the limitations of their findings, particularly that their method of ‘virus’ identification was in their own minds imperfect enough to warrant the “need” for “development of accurate methods” of identifying novel disease causing agents including ‘SARS-CoV2’, nor did they establish the ‘virus’ to be the definitive cause of disease in the Pneumonia patients from which the samples were taken (Koch’s postulates).
Koch’s postulates are a set of common sense guidelines for proving the existence of disease causing pathogens in patients, established by the German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the late 1800s, and have long been accepted as the scientific gold standard for identifying causative sources of infectious diseases. They can be summarized as follows:
• Isolate and purify the pathogen from as many patients as possible with the illness in question.
• Expose animals to the pathogen.
• Confirm that the same illness is produced in those who have been infected (as filtered influenza samples were shown to cause disease producing symptoms in matching human patients in 1933).
However, the famous virologist Thomas Rivers declared in a 1936 speech that, “It is obvious that Koch's postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” This presents a major problem for virologists, and the problem continues, while many argue that Koch’s postulates are outdated and cannot be applied to viruses because viruses behave so much differently than bacteria. That these guidelines are still referenced and used by researchers to this day, however, is testament to the fact that they are still relevant, even if imperfect when it comes to the ‘science’ of virology. Rivers created his own guidelines based upon Koch’s postulates to address this ‘problem’, known as River’s postulates, which are essentially the ‘updated’ Koch’s postulates for the age of virus identification, important enough to be referenced by researchers falsely claiming Koch’s postulates had been met in the case of the original SARS virus. Those who accept the theory of modern virology will find that neither did this cornerstone study nor has anyone to date even come close to fulfilling River’s postulates in regards to ‘SARS-CoV2’ either.
Meanwhile, Australian scientists from the Doherty Institute who also falsely announced that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus, admitted, when they were asked to clarify, that: “We have short (RNA) sequences from the diagnostic test that can be used in the diagnostic tests,” and not a complete genetic sequence from purified virus particles or particles of any kind, or from any allegedly isolated virus sample.
Additionally, when seasoned virologist Dr. Charles Calisher was asked “whether he knows of one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified,” his May 10 response was: ”I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”
Similarly, four months later in September of 2020, Michael Laue of the Robert Koch-Institute, a key establishment backer of the corona narrative, also stated: "I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.”
Furthermore, on June 7, 2021, the CDC confirmed in writing once again that they still do not have a virus isolate or any purified virus samples and cannot provide any documents pertaining to the purification of the alleged virus. In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for “[A]ll studies and/or reports ... describing the purification of any ‘COVID-19 virus’ ... taken directly from a diseased human, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material,” the Atlanta CDC office responded with the following answer: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. Specifically, the ... CDC does not purify or isolate any COVID-19 virus in the manner the requester describes.”
Indeed, their ‘isolation’ process is nothing but culturing of patients samples, and they do not purify the resulting ‘isolate material’ passed off as ‘SARS-CoV2’, nor do they perform end-to-end sequencing of any particle contained in the ‘isolate material’ dubbed ‘virus isolate’, but rather computer generate a ‘whole genome’ sequence pieced together and built upon minuscule partial RNA fragments fished out of the culture and, for the most part, theoretical genome sequences based upon the original, computer generated Wuhan strain/Drosten sequence.
These written requests were made by Ms. Christine Massey to CDC/ATSDR FOIA Chief Officer Mr. Robert Andoh, to locate and deliver ANY records, research and/or findings for ANY “viral” isolation and purification (by anyone, anywhere, anytime in the World) from a patient sample, via maceration, filtration and/or the use of an ultracentrifuge . . . what is called the ‘Gold Standard’ for isolating and identifying a pathological micro or nana organism.
Christine Massey, independent Canadian researcher and former biostatistician in the field of cancer research, together with a few associates, has for months been on the hunt for any evidence from anyone anywhere in the world that this phantom virus has actually been isolated. As of October 7, 2021, FOIA requests have been submitted to 116 health, science and government institutions around the world, and 105 institutions in over 20 countries including 34 Canadian agencies which have responded have been entirely unable to produce a single paper describing the actual isolation or particle purification of ‘SARS-CoV2’, or any evidence of the existence of any such virus isolate.
Establishment ‘experts’ argue that the isolation process described in these FOIA requests is “impossible” to achieve with viruses, because, they say, it is not possible to isolate a virus prior to culturing a patient sample, however the fact that not one single institution claiming to have positively identified ‘SARS-CoV2’ has so much as even attempted to purify the ‘virus’ particles following their flawed ‘isolation’ process, is proof enough that these entities are not interested in proving the existence of the phantom virus they’ve been chasing for two years now.
The CDC still does not have a “quantified virus isolate” available, nor any documentation that the current RNA specimens, being hailed as ‘isolated virus’ from which all new ‘strains’ and ‘variants’ are sequenced and cultured, are derived from purified virus particles, because no one has undertaken the particle purification process following initial ‘isolation’. Neither has anyone anywhere in the world produced the complete genome sequence of any particle found in any patient sample, because complete end-to-end sequencing of any such particles has never been performed. This is truly remarkable considering the number of electron micrographs there are from patient samples depicting particles alleged to be ‘SARS-CoV2’. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for why this next logical step in the virus identification process has never been attempted.
As PCR can only “detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves,” the only reliable means of detecting actual viruses in patient samples is under an electron microscope; and the electron micrographs of the alleged virus particles, admittedly not purified, which were provided in the Chinese study alleging initial isolation of the virus, reveal such a wide ranging size of particles it is impossible that they could realistically all be virions of the self same novel virus. Upon measurement, in fact, not even all of these particles fall within the size range proposed by the study authors - 60-140nm - as the smallest alleged virus particle identified in the micrograph is just 52nm while the largest measures in at 155.6nm!
The authors of the journalistic masterpiece published by Off Guardian on January 21, 2021 - Phantom Virus: In Search of SARS-CoV-2 - well summarized the comical nature of this extraordinarily implausible scientific absurdity.
These images reveal that these particles vary extremely in size. In fact, the bandwidth ranges from 60 to 140 nanometers (nm). A virus that has such extreme size variation cannot actually exist.
For example, it can be said of human beings that they vary from about 1.50 meters to 2.10 meters, as there are several individuals of different heights. Now, saying that viruses as a whole range from 60 to 140 nm — as did Zhu et al.— may eventually make sense; but to say that the individual SARS-Cov2 virions vary so much would be like saying that John varies his height from 1.60 to 2 meters depending on the circumstances!
One could reply that viruses are not human individuals, but it is also true that, according to virology, each virus has a fairly stable structure. So, with SARS-Cov2 they are taking liberties of definition which further confirm that everything on this specific virus is even more random than usual. And that license of unlimited definition led to the fact that the Wikipedia entry on coronavirus was changed, and now reports that “Each SARS-CoV-2 virion has a diameter of about 50 to 200 nm”. That would be like saying that John varies his height from 1 to 4 meters according to circumstances!
What is passed off as SARS-Cov2 are actually particles of all kinds, as can also be seen from the images provided by the mentioned paper by Zhu et al. Below is the photo that Zhu et al. present as the photo of SARS-Cov2:
It can also be clearly seen that the particles in question have not been purified, with the amount of cellular debris also visible, but this reality has since been openly admitted by an author of the study. So when the ‘fact-checkers’ cite the statements of Dr. Fauci and the like referencing photographs of the ‘virus’ as proof of its existence, they are doing absolutely nothing to dispel the absurdity of their nonsensical hypothesis. Perhaps ‘SARS-CoV2’ is in fact a highly advanced shape-shifting nanobot of a pathogen that is constantly changing its size and the symptoms it will induce, developed in a secret lab by scientists from the future, or perhaps it is but a phantom virus. Until the particles in question are purified and sequenced from end-to-end, we really have no way of knowing. And so the hunt for ‘SARS-CoV2’ continues, in vain.
The German entrepreneur Samuel Eckert has also been on the hunt for any evidence from anyone proving the existence of the phantom virus. Not only has he asked health authorities from various European cities to provide any study documenting complete isolation and purification of the so-called virus without any luck, he even offered a sizable €230,000 reward to Christian Drosten if he could simply “present any text passages from publications that scientifically prove the process of isolation of SARS-CoV-2 and its genetic substance.” He did not receive a response by the December 31, 2020 deadline.
Maybe the lack of any credible attempts to actually isolate and purify the ‘virus’ has to do with WHO guidelines advising against isolation of the ‘virus’ as a routine diagnostic procedure, while simultaneously encouraging the conflation of isolation with culturing. Just leave the ‘isolation’ of the ‘virus’ to a select chosen few in the elite circle of ‘experts’, and trust us, the WHO is essentially asking. Not much has changed since day 1 of this global experiment. See the screenshots below from page 4 of the Interim Guidance document dated March 2, 2020, “Laboratory testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in suspected human cases” and page 8 of the Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 Interim guidance dated September 11, 2020, courtesy Christine Massey.
A number of the most renown scientists in the world all agree that purification is a necessary step in the identification of any novel virus.
“It is necessary,” French virologist Luc Montagnier has said, White and Fenner that “it’s an essential pre-requisite,” while renowned American biological medical researcher Robert Gallo insists, “You have to purify.”
Marcel Tanner: "If a pure SARS-CoV-2 isolate cannot be documented by the IVI [Institute of Virology and Immunology] in Bern, then we have a problem.”
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi: “... you have to purify the virus from all this mess.”
David Gordon: “It’s a natural step from obtaining the virus in cell culture to then obtain purified virus.”
The list goes on, but you get the picture. There are at the same time over 42 reputable experts and counting, most of whom are either medical doctors or hold PhDs, who maintain that there is a complete lack of evidence to suggest that the particles being passed off as ‘SARS-CoV2’ are a disease causing pathogen.
Without purified virus particles, there is no way to identify the phantom virus, and there is to this day not a single entity who has performed complete end-to-end genetic sequencing of any particle of any kind in the context of ‘SARS-CoV2’ identification. It is also incredibly difficult to establish the alleged virus as the cause of disease in anyone diagnosed with ‘Covid19’ without first obtaining such purified particles to compare future patient samples to, while attempts to infect animals (mice) with ‘virus isolate material’ utterly failed to produce any Covid symptoms whatsoever. This is in stark contrast to the influenza filtrate of the 1933 influenza virus isolation project, which clearly appears to have caused disease in ferrets, as, upon infection, the animals developed symptoms closely matching those in the human patients from which the isolated samples were taken.
And it is absolutely impossible to accurately diagnose (identify) a single Covid patient using PCR without both first isolating and obtaining a complete viral genome of ‘SARS-CoV2’ through end-to-end sequencing of purified particles, and also proving it to be the cause of disease labelled ‘Covid-19’.
That we are dealing with a monumental fraud of vast proportions is evident, according to Dr. Robert Frost, “the biggest fraud in medical history.”
This will be conclusively demonstrated in the next post, where we will take a good hard look at the establishment ‘isolation’ and sequencing process which reveals just how the theoretical ‘SARS-CoV2’ is constructed, as well as the pervasive PCR fraud largely responsible for creating the Covid illusion, and the evidence, from the CDC no less, that the ‘virus’ is neither infectious to humans nor the cause of disease.
And while it is true that absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, it is also true that until the existence of ‘SARS-CoV2’ has been proven, the world continues to chase a phantom virus that has yet to be found.