In part 1 it was established that the scientific basis for the theory that viruses cause disease is shaky at best, let’s examine how this so-called ‘new virus’ was ‘discovered’.
The discovery of a virus RNA fragment
It all started in Wuhan, which is a large city with 11 million people and capital of China’s Hubei province. People there began to experience respiratory symptoms, which if you’ve ever been to a large Chinese city, you’ll know is nothing new. In fact, the air pollution in Wuhan has been reported as being dangerously high (more on this later).
Doctors administered antibiotics to those who were ill, but after three days, they showed no signs of improvement. Based on the lack of response to the antibiotics and the patients’ symptoms, doctors diagnosed a ‘viral pneumonia’.
As Dr. Kaufman explains in another fantastic video presentation, in order to prove their theory of a new viral disease, scientists in Wuhan carried out the following procedure:
- Collected lung fluid from sick people
- Separated out genetic material from the sample, namely RNA
- Sequenced that genetic material
- Developed an RT-PCR test to detect the RNA sequence
It is clear then that the scientists in Wuhan did NOT find a virus, nor did they have any way of knowing that the RNA they found was of viral origin.
The study, titled A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin, states that:
“Full-length genome sequences [of the ‘virus’] were obtained from five patients at the early stage of the outbreak. They are almost identical to each other and share 79.5% sequence identify to SARS-CoV”.
Essentially, the scientists in Wuhan determined this RNA to be viral because it shared 79.5% sequence identity to that of a ‘known’ coronavirus (i.e. Sars-CoV, the original SARS virus).
As humans we share 90% of our DNA with cats, so by following the same logic as the scientists in Wuhan, all humans are actually cats. Put into this context, the conclusion that the RNA came from a new virus is anything but scientific.
As Dr. Kaufman and others have pointed out, it seems just as likely that the RNA fragment could have come from a bacterium, or even our own cells.
Now, there have been further studies published since the original one in Wuhan that claim to have ‘isolated’ the Sars-Cov-2 ‘virus’ but as will be shown below, nothing could be further from the truth.
Misleading use of the term ‘isolate’
The definition of ‘isolate’ as given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is as follows: “to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state”, but this is not what virologists mean when they say they have ‘isolated’ a virus.
Dr. Lanka, in his January article, clarifies:
“The death of tissue/cells is regarded as the isolation of a virus, because they claim that something from the outside, from another organism, was brought into the laboratory, although a virus has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation, and it has never been photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique virus”.
In order to prove the existence of a virus, viral isolation is paramount, as this allows scientists to obtain pure viral particles, separated from other cellular debris. This enables scientists to characterise the whole virus and obtain electron micrographs of pure viral particles.
However, as Dr Lanka points out, when scientists talk of ‘isolation’, they don’t mean true isolation. In fact, what Dr. Lanka (and the dictionary) refer to as isolation, most other virologists would call ‘purification’.
The process of ‘purifying’ a virus is called ‘gradient density centrifugation’. The process involves the use of a centrifuge to separate the viral particles from all other matter in the test tube, thereby obtaining a purified virus.
The below diagram, taken from an article written by Dr. Lanka in 2015 titled ‘Dismantling the Virus Theory’ sums up the process quite nicely.
Picture taken from Lanka, ‘Dismantling the Viral Theory’, 2015.
In the same article, Dr. Lanka writes:
“The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus.”
Despite this being so, the process has never been carried out for Sars-Cov-2 and therefore, there is no proof of the existence of a new virus.
Sars-Cov-2 fails Koch’s postulates
When attempting to prove that a microorganism (such as a virus) causes a disease, four specific criteria must be met. These are referred to as Koch’s postulates.
Koch’s Postulates are as follows:
- The microorganism is found in the ill but not the healthy
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture
- The organism must be inoculated into a host and produce the same disease
- The organism must be re-isolated from the host
It may come as a surprise to you that no scientific study on Sars-Cov-2 has proved ANY of the above four criteria.
The first of Koch’s postulates states that the organism should be found in the ill but not the healthy. We know already that this is not the case with COVID-19, as it’s estimated that over 80% of young people who test positive display no symptoms.
The second postulate also fails. Despite claims of having done so, not a single scientific study on Sars-Cov-2 demonstrates the isolation of a virus. This was confirmed above.
Just in case you need further convincing, in an article titled COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht asked the authors of these studies directly whether their electron micrographs showed purified virus particles, and they confirmed that they did not.
Finally, because the virus has never been truly isolated (‘purified’), it’s impossible to show proof that it is the sole cause of COVID-19.
There is an excellent video on this topic produced by Dr. Kaufman and an article written by Rosemary Frei (MSc. Molecular Biology) in which they go into much more detail on the matter. Both are well worth a look.
No proof that Sars-Cov-2 causes disease
It should be clear now that the claim that a new ‘virus’ is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic has no scientific basis.
If there is anyone that disagrees and believes that Sars-Cov-2 does exist and has been proven to cause disease, I would request you to find and share the following:
- An electron micrograph of a purified, fully characterised virus
- The primary scientific paper in which the virus is illustrated and its full genetic sequence described
- The primary scientific paper that provides proof that the virus is the sole cause of COVID-19
If you have read up to here, you may be wondering ‘if there is no virus, then how is it that people can test positive for COVID-19?’
The test for COVID-19 does not detect the presence of a virus
Once again, it may come as a surprise to you to know that the tests used to diagnose COVID-19 do not detect the presence of a virus. In fact, the main test being used, called RT-PCR, was never meant to be used for diagnosing a virus.
PCR is essentially a ‘manufacturing’ technique. PCR allows scientists to ‘amplify’ a sample of DNA, thereby making multiple copies of it. This is useful for researchers working with DNA in a lab.
So why would they use this technique as a means of diagnosing a ‘viral’ disease? Earlier in the article it was established that scientists did not isolate a new virus, instead what they found was an RNA fragment which they assumed to be viral.
The RT-PCR test allows you to amplify the genetic material in a sample taken from somebody who you think may have COVID-19. After this amplification process, it’s a lot easier to detect whether or not the specific ‘viral’ RNA fragment is present. If it’s detected, they are diagnosed as ‘positive’.
Sounds straight forward but there’s a huge problem with this.
This method of diagnosis does not produce a binary result. In other words, the test doesn’t tell you clearly whether someone is positive or negative. This depends solely on the number of cycles of amplification used on the sample.
The more cycles you run, the more copies of the genetic material are made and the more chance there is of generating a ‘positive’ result.
The line between positive and negative is determined by an arbitrary cut-off. That means, if you run 35 cycles and still can’t detect the ‘viral’ sequence, it would be a negative result. However, if you were to run 36 cycles, you may very well detect the viral sequence and the case would be marked as positive.
So, what’s going on here?
Dr. Kaufman, in his video presentation on the true nature of COVID-19, provides an excellent quote from an academic paper describing the shortcomings of the PCR test. It states:
“What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude.”
It’s clear then that PCR is incredibly inaccurate the more cycles you run. Furthermore, having a test with an adjustable cut off would make it very easy to inflate the number of ‘positive’ cases.
David Crowe, host of the infectious myth podcast, who holds degrees in biology and mathematics, makes the startling revelation that a Chinese research paper deemed the RT-PCR test used for diagnosing COVID-19 to have an 80% false positive rate. He states:
“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive… The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
The discussion here clearly shows that a virus has not been detected in anybody who has tested ‘positive’ for COVID-19 and therefore the number of cases is a meaningless statistic. This is backed up by numerous reports of people testing negative on their first test and then positive on their second or vice versa.
Furthermore, it could be argued that this discussion on testing is irrelevant considering there is no proof that Sars-Cov-2 exists.
No proof that COVID-19 is contagious
In a previous discussion, it was established that the theory of viral contagion is based on the assumption that ‘viruses’ can transmit from one person to another via saliva or mucous and that this has never been conclusively proven.
The official story tells us that the reason for a global lockdown is that COVID-19 is a highly contagious disease, yet there is no evidence to support this assertion.
A study titled Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study found that of 99 early cases of COVID-19 identified in Wuhan, only 49% had a history of contact to the Huanan Seafood Market (where the pandemic supposedly began).
Another study conducted in China titled A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers examined 455 people who had been exposed to ‘asymptomatic carriers’ of Sars-Cov-2 (in other words, people who tested positive but had no symptoms). The study concluded that none of the 455 participants contracted ‘COVID-19’.
The study states that:
“In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.”
Many early cases of COVID-19 around the world failed to show a link to Wuhan or anybody who had recently traveled or been diagnosed with the disease. During the early stages of the ‘pandemic’, the WHO recognised this as a concern. An article published in February stated that:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) is concerned about the number of coronavirus cases with no clear epidemiological link.”
Other anomalies also exist which contradict the assertion that COVID-19 is a contagious disease. This includes the curious case of Taiwan, an island off the coast of China with a population of nearly 24 million people.
Taiwan, despite being in such close proximity to China, has recorded less than 500 cases of COVID-19.
One day back in April, Taiwan recorded 22 new COVID-19 cases – almost all of them sailors who had been on a navy visit to the island of Palau. The curious thing is that even up to now, Palau has not recorded a single case of COVID-19.
Thailand is another interesting example of a country ‘escaping’ the spread of the ‘virus’. The first cases of COVID-19 outside of China were recorded in Thailand on January 13th. Despite no government instituted measures, the number of cases remained minimal for over two months.
It was only at the beginning of April that the Thai government instituted a curfew and suspended all commercial flights. Despite a large population and high density in big cities, Thailand has only recorded 3,142 cases of COVID-19.
The evidence put forth in this discussion further backs up the claim that COVID-19 is not caused by a virus that is transmissible from one person to another.
[end of part 2]
Zhou, P et al. Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin. February 3, 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7.
Lanka, S. Dismantling the virus theory. June 2015. WisshenshafftPlus Magazin.
Frei, R., Devereux, R. Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates. June 9, 2020. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/.
Poletti, P., et al. Probability of symptoms and critical disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection. June 15, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08471.
Engelbrecht, T., Demeter, K. COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless. Jun 27, 2020. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/.
Farber, C. Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?. April 15, 2020. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/was-covid-19-test-meant-detect-virus.
Mather, A. Covid-19 World Mortality Analysis – 4th July Data. July 5, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onbu4vQNkj4.
Reuters. WHO concerned about coronavirus cases with no clear epidemiological link. February 22, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/china-health-who/who-concerned-about-coronavirus-cases-with-no-clear-epidemiological-link-idUSL5N2AM05G.
Gao, M. et al. A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. May 13, 2020. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513410/.
Crowe, D. Op-Ed: Does the 2019 Coronavirus Exist?. March 14, 2020. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/does-2019-coronavirus-exist.
Blanchard, B. Taiwan virus cases jump after ship visit, Palau says not the source. April 20, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-taiwan/taiwan-virus-cases-jump-after-ship-visit-palau-says-not-the-source-idUSKBN22218B.
Worldometer. COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [accessed August 4, 2020].
Wikipedia. COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Thailand [accessed August 4, 2020].
Nanshan, C. et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. January 30, 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext.