Author Topic: Did They Isolate the Virus? (Read 1508 times)

Miser Peccator · « **on:** February 27, 2021, 05:49:22 PM »

What do you think?

China: no
CDC: all last year it said no, until a change made in Dec
FDA: no

evidence here 8min
https://odysee.com/@HighImpactFlix:ca/COVID19DoesntExist:9

There have also been many FOIA requests around the world saying the isolated virus is not available.

And if the virus wasn't isolated....what does that imply?

Miseremini · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2021, 06:20:09 PM »

To me that implies the "shot" has nothing to do with whatever was released last year.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2021, 07:33:35 PM »

Here is a shorter version (about 3min) on a platform you don't have to join to watch.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ao2xkXaLu9lj/

I think someone posted Jon Rappaport's reporting on this as well in another thread.

Here are the results of the Irish Government FOIA request:

IRISH GOVERNMENT ADMITS COVID-19 DOES NOT EXIST
10:38
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fNkXz0m2TCCL/

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2021, 07:36:12 PM »

Oh yes, here is the Jon Rappaport report on this in RomanCatholic1953's thread:

https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/covid-the-virus-was-never-proven-to-exist/msg735523/#new

Stanley N · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2021, 07:42:52 PM »

Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

Isolation and Full-Length Genome Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19 Cases in Northern Italy
https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/11/e00543-20

Detection and Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in Serum, Urine, and Stool Specimens of COVID-19 Patients from the Republic of Korea
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7282421/

Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1760144

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2021, 07:56:06 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 27, 2021, 07:42:52 PM

Identification of cσɾσnαvιɾυs Isolated from a Patient in Korea with CÖVÌD-19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/

Isolation and Full-Length Genome Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from CÖVÌD-19 Cases in Northern Italy
https://jvi.asm.org/content/94/11/e00543-20

Detection and Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in Serum, Urine, and Stool Specimens of CÖVÌD-19 Patients from the Republic of Korea
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7282421/

Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a CÖVÌD-19 patient
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1760144

Thanks!
So I don't know who to believe.
How do you account for the discrepancy between sources here?

Stanley N · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2021, 08:50:48 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on February 27, 2021, 07:56:06 PM

How do you account for the discrepancy between sources here?

If several people say X happened, while several others say X didn't happen, how would you evaluate that? You evaluate their credibility, which should include qualifications. Odds are, the people with appropriate training are right, while the people without training are misunderstanding or misrepresenting something.

In the Odysee video, in response to the question "why wasn't the data released", the guy says "the virus wasn't isolated". Is he saying the virus was never isolated, ever? Or that it wasn't in that particular case - and that's why that particular data wasn't released?

In the video related to Ireland, the FOIA response is basically "we don't have docuмents matching your request". That could mean the docuмents may exist outside the govt agency that was addressed. I didn't notice the video say precisely what was requested, so perhaps the request was framed poorly, perhaps even intentionally.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2021, 08:54:53 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 27, 2021, 08:50:48 PM

If several people say X happened, while several others say X didn't happen, how would you evaluate that? You evaluate their credibility, which should include qualifications. Odds are, the people with appropriate training are right, while the people without training are misunderstanding or misrepresenting something.

In the Odysee video, in response to the question "why wasn't the data released", the guy says "the virus wasn't isolated". Is he saying the virus was never isolated, ever? Or that it wasn't in that particular case - and that's why that particular data wasn't released?

In the video related to Ireland, the FOIA response is basically "we don't have docuмents matching your request". That could mean the docuмents may exist outside the govt agency that was addressed. I didn't notice the video say precisely what was requested, so perhaps the request was framed poorly, perhaps even intentionally.

I see.
So with regards to the PCR tests.
What is your opinion on their accuracy?
Also, can they really differentiate between CV19 and other viruses?

josefamenendez · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2021, 09:52:39 PM »

In the Korean study above, they used a culture on Vero cells ( green monkey cells) which invalidate isolation of any virus. Also in that study the claim PCR amplification cycles of 40, which also invalidates viral findings. I didn't have time to read the others but I will.

CÖVÌD: the virus was never proven to exist; a statement from Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell

Feb26

by Jon Rappoport
by Jon Rappoport
February 26, 2021
(To join our email list, click here.)
During this series of articles, in which I’ve been exposing the CÖVÌD PCR test as a fɾαυd and a hoax and a con, I’ve assumed, for purposes of discussion, that the virus—SARS-CoV-2—is real and has been isolated. [1]
I’ve made that assumption in order to show that, within the official world of CÖVÌD, the PCR is a sham.
However, as my readers know, for months I’ve been making the case that no one has proved SARS-CoV-2 exists. [2]
Therefore, the PCR test is built to detect a fragment of a virus whose very existence has failed to meet a rational standard of evidence.
This raises the absurdity of the PCR test to a whole new level.
Researchers assume the piece of RNA the test is looking for is part of SARS-CoV-2. But without having the actual isolated virus in hand, there is no way to know this RNA fragment is any more relevant than a speck of dust on the moon.
Recently, Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Sally Fallon Morell published a statement concerning the existence of SARS-CoV-2. I am printing it here in full. It should be read and understood by every thinking person:

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI) [3]
“Isolation: The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness.” — Oxford English Dictionary
The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:
* the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical spike or other proteins;
* the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;
* “variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;
* it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called CÖVÌD-19.
In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. 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, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages [4a] and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.
These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues. [4b] (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.) [4c]
If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.
None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.
Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fɾαυd.
The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fɾαυd.
From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, pleasCÖVÌD: the virus was never proven to exist; a statement from Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell Feb
26
by Jon Rappoport
by Jon Rappoport

February 26, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

During this series of articles, in which I’ve been exposing the CÖVÌD PCR test as a fɾαυd and a hoax and a con, I’ve assumed, for purposes of discussion, that the virus—SARS-CoV-2—is real and has been isolated. [1]

I’ve made that assumption in order to show that, within the official world of CÖVÌD, the PCR is a sham.

However, as my readers know, for months I’ve been making the case that no one has proved SARS-CoV-2 exists. [2]

Therefore, the PCR test is built to detect a fragment of a virus whose very existence has failed to meet a rational standard of evidence.

This raises the absurdity of the PCR test to a whole new level.

Researchers assume the piece of RNA the test is looking for is part of SARS-CoV-2. But without having the actual isolated virus in hand, there is no way to know this RNA fragment is any more relevant than a speck of dust on the moon.

Recently, Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Sally Fallon Morell published a statement concerning the existence of SARS-CoV-2. I am printing it here in full. It should be read and understood by every thinking person:

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI) [3]

“Isolation: The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness.” — Oxford English Dictionary

The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:

* the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical spike or other proteins;

* the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;

* “variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;

* it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called CÖVÌD-19.

In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. 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, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages [4a] and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.

These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues. [4b] (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.) [4c]

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fɾαυd.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fɾαυd.

From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections.was not isolation. You w If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process ill hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:

1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.

2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?

Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to stop this terrible fɾαυd that humanity is confronting. For, as we now know, if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing and putting the whole world into prison?

Finally, if pathogenic viruses don’t exist, then what is going into those injectable devices erroneously called “ναccιnєs,” and what is their purpose? This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.

We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.

Sally Fallon Morell, MA

Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MDe check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:
1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.
2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.
If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?
Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to stop this terrible fɾαυd that humanity is confronting. For, as we now know, if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing and putting the whole world into prison?
Finally, if pathogenic viruses don’t exist, then what is going into those injectable devices erroneously called “ναccιnєs,” and what is their purpose? This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.
We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.
Sally Fallon Morell, MA
Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD
Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD

Stanley N · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2021, 10:01:29 PM »

Quote from: josefamenendez on February 27, 2021, 09:52:39 PM

In the Korean study above, they used a culture on Vero cells ( green monkey cells) which invalidate isolation of any virus. Also in that study the claim PCR amplification cycles of 40, which also invalidates viral findings. I didn't have time to read the others but I will.

Why would that "invalidate"?

And frankly, Kaufman has discredited himself. He thinks enemas solve practically everything, including appendicitis.

Stanley N · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2021, 10:33:44 PM »

I see. They define "isolation" in a peculiar way so they can disregard what anyone else says.

OK, If they claim the vrius doesn't exist, what proof have they supplied for their ideas?

josefamenendez · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2021, 08:22:19 AM »

Contaminated substrate (not purified); contaminated culture medium (vero cells).

Even the CDC stated it didn't have entire sequence sample of virus

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2)”

Of course, since this statement was discovered months ago, they have pulled it from the study and are "fact checking " it out of existence. it was originally in this atrticle on page 39.
CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel - Instructions for Use (fda.gov)

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2021, 11:49:22 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 27, 2021, 10:01:29 PM

Why would that "invalidate"?

And frankly, Kaufman has discredited himself. He thinks enemas solve practically everything, including appendicitis.

But that doesn't make everything Kaufman promotes to be false. Maybe he is wrong about the efficacy of enemas, but he might be right about many other things.

The facts are the facts. Have they isolated a "cσɾσnαvιɾυs" SARS-CoV-2, or haven't they?

That 3-D artist's conception picture of the virus that you see pasted up on every small business telling you to wear masks (SEE PIC BELOW) -- we all ASSUME that is a virus they've extracted and isolated, and that "CÖVÌD-19" is somehow legitimate. But it's not. And the more people know the truth, the better.

Stanley N · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2021, 05:07:36 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on February 28, 2021, 11:49:22 AM

But that doesn't make everything Kaufman promotes to be false. Maybe he is wrong about the efficacy of enemas, but he might be right about many other things.

Sure, yes, it's possible that although someone is a nut, the nut might say some other things that are true.

But likewise, that doesn't make other things the nut promotes to be necessarily true.

Has Kaufman provided any proof for his exosome idea?

Quote

The facts are the facts. Have they isolated a "cσɾσnαvιɾυs" SARS-CoV-2, or haven't they?

Absolutely. Now have they, Matthew? Do you know the answer?

If you're not an expert in virology, you either need to decide based on secondary factors, or refrain from deciding.

The majority of scientists and scientific bodies say it has been isolated.

Quote

That 3-D artist's conception picture of the virus that you see pasted up on every small business telling you to wear masks (SEE PIC BELOW) -- we all ASSUME that is a virus they've extracted and isolated, and that "CÖVÌD-19" is somehow legitimate. But it's not. And the more people know the truth, the better.

And it seems you ASSUME, due to an opinion about one image, that no other images of the virus exist: "But it's not".

What would it take for you to change your mind?

Quote from: josefamenendez

Even the CDC stated it didn't have entire sequence sample of virus
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, ...”

Is that what the quote really says? In that quote, "quantified" modifies "virus isolates". They're not saying they don't have virus isolates, but apparently they didn't have "quantifiied virus isolates" available. At that time. Now, what do you think "quantified" means?

Yeti · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2021, 05:15:48 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on February 28, 2021, 05:07:36 PM

The majority of scientists and scientific bodies say it has been isolated.

.
I don't know anything about medicine, but a year ago a statement like the above would have satisfied me completely. Now, I'm not so sure. Over the last year, the vast majority of doctors (with a few glorious exceptions) have shown themselves to be liars on behalf of the Noo World Order. So the problem here is that those people are the ones we are relying on to believe that this virus exists. Now, obviously that doesn't prove it doesn't exist, either, but the burden of proof is on the people claiming its existence, and someone with no credibility is not able to meet any burden of proof.
.
How can this dilemma be resolved? I have no idea. But I don't consider myself 100% convinced this virus is real.

Author Topic: Did They Isolate the Virus? (Read 1508 times)

Miser Peccator

Did They Isolate the Virus?

Miseremini

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Miser Peccator

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Miser Peccator

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Stanley N

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Miser Peccator

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Stanley N

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Miser Peccator

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

josefamenendez

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Stanley N

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Stanley N

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

josefamenendez

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Matthew

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Stanley N

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?

Yeti

Re: Did They Isolate the Virus?