Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Based on my understanding of what I've read so far. Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician felt no need to look at any other papers regarding Cov 2, so I believe that simply taking a look at the original paper was more than sufficient.

So based on your understanding, the best argument is to ignore 99% of evidence and concentrate on 1% that can't be proven one way or the other?

If you are going to argue that Covid doesn't exist as a virus then you need to address ALL the times that it has been sequenced and de novo assembled, not just one. Failure to address the well over 6,000 other times it has been assembled from sequences would point you not having a strong argument.

 

[Scott]

You missed the continuation of that. Allow me:
**
A contig is a set of gel readings that are related to one another by overlap of their sequences. All gel readings belong to one and only one contig, and each contig contains at least one gel reading. The gel readings in a contig can be summed to form a contiguous consensus sequence and the length of this sequence is the length of the contig.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contig

But alright, it is short for a "contiguous consensus sequence". Happy now?

Contiguous consensus. NOT contiguous RNA.

I had always agreed with you that it didn't stand for contiguous RNA, because I knew that contigs were used in reference to DNA sequences as well. The only difference now is that I see that the meaning of contig is a bit more nuanced than simply being an abbreviation of contiguous. It essentially means "contiguous consensus sequence".

 

[Scott]

Based on my understanding of what I've read so far. Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician felt no need to look at any other papers regarding Cov 2, so I believe that simply taking a look at the original paper was more than sufficient.

So based on your understanding, the best argument is to ignore 99% of evidence and concentrate on 1% that can't be proven one way or the other?

If you can find a single paper that provides solid evidence that -any- biological virus has ever been truly isolated, I'd like to see it. Frankly, I think that Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician went above and beyond what was necessary, but I'm glad he did, as it got me to see just how obscure the "discoveries" of alleged biological viruses is. Perhaps one day they'll be able to actually reproduce the results of this alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus. I certainly hope so. I imagine it'd make it even easier to point out the pseudoscientific methods that are being used here.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I certainly agree that facts are facts, but saying that your opponent's material is "nonsense" right off the bat is the type of thing that tends to derail threads, inviting your opponent to engage in similar unproductive insults of the same nature or at least turn them off from actually reading whatever else you have to say. I suggest focusing on providing -evidence- for your point of view. If you decide to -conclude- that that the material your ideological opponent is nonsense, that would make more sense.



Again, no, we have had electron microscope photos of microbes that virologists -allege- are polio viruses. Feel free to try to find any evidence that any virus has ever truly been isolated.



It's up to the one making the claim to provide evidence for it. If you believe that these electron microscope photos are taking pictures of polio viruses, it's up to you to provide evidence that said microbes are, in fact, polio viruses.

ROFLMAO. I have evidence of it. You have not disputed any of it. You keep ignoring it or denying it. You have certainly not refuted any of the evidence I have presented.

Here is how to isolate a virus -
https://openstax.org/books/microbiology/pages/6-3-isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses
It's a much simpler explanation than the one you ignored earlier in this thread.
Viruses can be isolated. They have been isolated. Your claims are not valid.

Here is a picture of isolated viruses.

You have no explanation for what is in this picture. It is virus. It has been isolated and photographed in an electron microscope.



Here is another picture of viruses. Tell us what it is if not a virus.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If you can find a single paper that provides solid evidence that -any- biological virus has ever been truly isolated, I'd like to see it. Frankly, I think that Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician went above and beyond what was necessary, but I'm glad he did, as it got me to see just how obscure the "discoveries" of alleged biological viruses is. Perhaps one day they'll be able to actually reproduce the results of this alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus. I certainly hope so. I imagine it'd make it even easier to point out the pseudoscientific methods that are being used here.

Truly isolated? What the fuck is that? Show me evidence of any bacteria being "truly isolated."

 

[Scott]

It's up to the one making the claim to provide evidence for it. If you believe that these electron microscope photos are taking pictures of polio viruses, it's up to you to provide evidence that said microbes are, in fact, polio viruses.

ROFLMAO. I have evidence of it.

If so, I have yet to see it.

Here is how to isolate a virus -
https://openstax.org/books/microbiology/pages/6-3-isolation-culture-and-identification-of-viruses

I think it's sad that people are being taught this, when the evidence just isn't there. As the group of doctors stated in their "Settling the Virus Debate" statement:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**


The authors of the paper concede that this will probably never be done right off the bat due to past failures to do so, and so settle on something that could be done before attempting the above:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.


STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.
(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)
If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.

It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.

We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative. Signatories,
Thomas Cowan, MD
Jitendra Banjara, MSc
Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS
Andrew Kaufman, MD
Paul McSheehy, PhD
Saeed Qureshi, PhD
Amandha Vollmer, NDoc
Mark Bailey, MD
Kelly Brogan, MD
Michael Donio, MS
Valentina Kiseleva, MD
Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD
Stefano Scoglio, PhD
Michael Yeadon, PhD
Samantha Bailey, MD
Kevin Corbett, PhD
Jordan Grant, MD
Christine Massey, MSc
Sachin Pethkar, BAMS
Mike Stone, BEXSc
**

 

[Scott]

If you can find a single paper that provides solid evidence that -any- biological virus has ever been truly isolated, I'd like to see it. Frankly, I think that Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician went above and beyond what was necessary, but I'm glad he did, as it got me to see just how obscure the "discoveries" of alleged biological viruses is. Perhaps one day they'll be able to actually reproduce the results of this alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus. I certainly hope so. I imagine it'd make it even easier to point out the pseudoscientific methods that are being used here.

Truly isolated? What the fuck is that?

Again with the invective. It seems beyond your capability to limit it. Anyway, to understand how alleged viruses could be truly isolated, I gave an in depth explanation in post #846.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If you can find a single paper that provides solid evidence that -any- biological virus has ever been truly isolated, I'd like to see it. Frankly, I think that Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician went above and beyond what was necessary, but I'm glad he did, as it got me to see just how obscure the "discoveries" of alleged biological viruses is. Perhaps one day they'll be able to actually reproduce the results of this alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus. I certainly hope so. I imagine it'd make it even easier to point out the pseudoscientific methods that are being used here.

Here you go:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28923314/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19066805/

https://www.sartorius.com/resource/...ation-purification-viruses-sl-4002-e-data.pdf

https://www.future-science.com/doi/full/10.2144/000112589#_i2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223007113


Here is a video showing one process to isolate the virus
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/introduction-to-microbiology/0/steps/51422

Not only is it possible to reproduce the results of the alleged discovery of Cov 2 virus. It has been reproduced thousands of times.

Here are some of the papers where Covid has been isolated
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00543-20
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247524

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again with the invective. It seems beyond your capability to limit it. Anyway, to understand how alleged viruses could be truly isolated, I gave an in depth explanation in post #846.

1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step


1. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
2. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
3. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
4. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
5. has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.

Your refusal to accept facts is tiring. Calling your arguments stupid is not an invective. It would appear to be a statement of fact. Your arguments are insipid and ignore reality.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If so, I have yet to see it.



I think it's sad that people are being taught this, when the evidence just isn't there.

Bullshit deleted since you keep quoting it and refuse to accept arguments that clearly refute it.
**

Have viruses been isolated? Yes or no? I have presented multiple scientific papers showing that has occurred.
Have viruses RNA been sequenced? Yes or no? I have presented multiple scientific papers showing that has occurred.

Have viruses been grown in a tissue culture? Yes or no? A Nobel prize as granted for growing viruses in tissue culture. No one has ever shown that to be fraudulently given.

Your refusal to support your claims is telling. Your inability to argue actual facts is telling

Refute this - You have not been able to do so and you continually ignore it while resorting back to the same bullshit over and over and over.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
Until you can prove that the virus wasn't grown in a tissue culture and the Nobel committee were fooled any claim that viruses can't be grown in culture are nothing but bullshit from you.

 

[Scott]

If you can find a single paper that provides solid evidence that -any- biological virus has ever been truly isolated, I'd like to see it. Frankly, I think that Dr. Stefan Lanka's Hamburg mathematician went above and beyond what was necessary, but I'm glad he did, as it got me to see just how obscure the "discoveries" of alleged biological viruses is. Perhaps one day they'll be able to actually reproduce the results of this alleged discovery of the Cov 2 virus. I certainly hope so. I imagine it'd make it even easier to point out the pseudoscientific methods that are being used here.

Here you go:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28923314/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19066805/

https://www.sartorius.com/resource/...ation-purification-viruses-sl-4002-e-data.pdf

https://www.future-science.com/doi/full/10.2144/000112589#_i2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223007113

In retrospect, I think I should have been more specific. Can you -quote- a paper detailing evidence that they have isolated a virus? Not going to wade through a bunch of papers trying to find your evidence for you.

Here is a video showing one process to isolate the virus
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/introduction-to-microbiology/0/steps/51422

I can't quote a video. If you have some text purporting to isolate a virus, would be good.

Not only is it possible to reproduce the results of the alleged discovery of Cov 2 virus. It has been reproduced thousands of times.

So you claim. I trust the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka's mathematician more. However, I decided to look to see if any other Cov 2 virus claims had been debunked. Turns out, there are plenty:

"germ" FOIs - James Lyons-Weiler, Sundhedsstyrelsen, U Toronto, Statens Serum, CDC, UK HSA - no records! | substack.com

She also debunked 2 papers claiming to show the alleged existence of the Cov 2 virus in a substack post of hers. The first was the original paper, the second was a paper by Turonova et al, from October, 2020. Quoting her:

**

The 1st paper we looked at is by Zhu et al., February 2020:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
Supplementary Appendix:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017/suppl_file/nejmoa2001017_appendix.pdf

This paper contains contains zero protein analysis, and one of the authors admitted in writing to rockstar investigative journalist and Virus Mania co-author Torsten Engelbrecht way back in March 2020 that they didn't purify the particles that they had passed off as a “the virus”:
https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/wp-content/uploads/NaZhu_noSARSCoV2purification-1.pdf

So clearly that paper did not pass the test.

The 2nd paper is by Turonova et al., October 2020:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd5223
(you have to open a separate file from inside this paper to find the Methods).

This is the same paper that Dan and his colleague

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634274279192666112

attempted to “debunk” Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman with back in 2021, thinking they were citing a “scientific” paper showing the existence of the imaginary/deadly replicating disease bomb “SARS-COV-2”.

Turonova et al. did not find and purify potential “virus” particles from a clinical sample, sequence and characterize them, and study them with valid controlled experiments.

Rather, the authors explain that a so-called “isolate MUC-1” had been provided to them by Dr. G. Dobler, Bundeswehr Institute for Microbiology, Denmark.

We actually know that this so-called “isolate MUC-1” was a man-made monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi concoction cooked up by the infamous pair, Corman and Drosten, as confirmed by my emails with Dr. Dobler and a bit of research outlined here:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/muc-1-aka-muc-imb1-just-more-corman-drosten-monkey-business-fraud/.
**

Source:
Dan and Me: A love story | substack.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In retrospect, I think I should have been more specific. Can you -quote- a paper detailing evidence that they have isolated a virus? Not going to wade through a bunch of papers trying to find your evidence for you.

As I suspected. You aren't really interested in evidence.
You can read the papers. Why should I quote the entire thing here?

I see you have now decided to move the goalposts for what you require since the first requirements were met.
Can viruses be isolated ? Yes or no.

we compared different approaches to virus isolation. Based on virus yield, we show that deionized water lysis is the fastest and most effective method for releasing LCMV MX infectious viral particles from persistently infected cells.

Conclusion
The concentration and purification of viruses by
ultrafiltration is virtually independent of the chemical
properties and the structure of the virus particles. As viruses
have a size ranging from tens up to several hundred
nanometers, they are typically several orders of magnitude
bigger than even the largest protein complexes.7 Therefore,
most viruses are unfailingly retained on membranes with
MWCOs up to 1,000 kDa. The exact specifications of the
ideal ultrafiltration membranes depend on the purpose of
ultrafiltration and the subsequent application(s).

(A) Both TT-1 and Vero cells (2 × 106/10 cm plate) were infected with AMPV at an MOI of 0.1. Virions collected by the F-T method, virus media containing virus before DW treatment (medium), and virus DW (DW) were clarified by centrifugation at 3000× g for 15 min. AMPV titers were determined as previously described and enumerated by plaque-forming unit/milliliter (pfu/mL) and data are the mean ± sem from three independent experiments. (B) Based on the virus titers, total numbers of virus particles were measured and plotted. Data are the mean ± sem.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you claim. I trust the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka's mathematician more. However, I decided to look to see if any other Cov 2 virus claims had been debunked. Turns out, there are plenty:

"germ" FOIs - James Lyons-Weiler, Sundhedsstyrelsen, U Toronto, Statens Serum, CDC, UK HSA - no records! | substack.com

She also debunked 2 papers claiming to show the alleged existence of the Cov 2 virus in a substack post of hers. The first was the original paper, the second was a paper by Turonova et al, from October, 2020. Quoting her:

**

The 1st paper we looked at is by Zhu et al., February 2020:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
Supplementary Appendix:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017/suppl_file/nejmoa2001017_appendix.pdf

This paper contains contains zero protein analysis, and one of the authors admitted in writing to rockstar investigative journalist and Virus Mania co-author Torsten Engelbrecht way back in March 2020 that they didn't purify the particles that they had passed off as a “the virus”:
https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/wp-content/uploads/NaZhu_noSARSCoV2purification-1.pdf

So clearly that paper did not pass the test.

Really? If the paper didn't pass the test why is there no valid argument about the paper? Why rely on a single statement to a news agency that could have been translated wrong?
Have you read the paper? If they didn't purify the virus, how could they include electron microscope images of the virus? It seems that neither you nor your authors can explain the picture.

But then I followed down the rabbithole of the claim that the virus wasn't purified.
As to the email that supposedly claimed the virus wasn't purified, the question is about how the RNA was processed. Did you forget how that is done already and how reads are only 100-150 long?
Claiming that the virus isn't purified because one part of the process breaks the viruses apart shows either a failure to understand the process or an attempt to lie. Which is it?

The 2nd paper is by Turonova et al., October 2020:

A paper that doesn't claim to purify a virus is not evidence of anything other than a disingenuous attempt on your part to not deal with the papers that do show viruses being purified.

 

[Scott]

Again with the invective. It seems beyond your capability to limit it. Anyway, to understand how alleged viruses could be truly isolated, I gave an in depth explanation in post #846.

1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step


1. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
2. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
3. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
4. Has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
5. has been done multiple times. You just refuse to accept the evidence.

I strongly disagree.

 

[Scott]

If so, I have yet to see it.

I think it's sad that people are being taught this, when the evidence just isn't there. As the group of doctors stated in their "Settling the Virus Debate" statement:

**
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
**


The authors of the paper concede that this will probably never be done right off the bat due to past failures to do so, and so settle on something that could be done before attempting the above:

**
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists...

STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.


STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.
(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)
If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.

It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.

We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative. Signatories,
Thomas Cowan, MD
Jitendra Banjara, MSc
Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS
Andrew Kaufman, MD
Paul McSheehy, PhD
Saeed Qureshi, PhD
Amandha Vollmer, NDoc
Mark Bailey, MD
Kelly Brogan, MD
Michael Donio, MS
Valentina Kiseleva, MD
Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD
Stefano Scoglio, PhD
Michael Yeadon, PhD
Samantha Bailey, MD
Kevin Corbett, PhD
Jordan Grant, MD
Christine Massey, MSc
Sachin Pethkar, BAMS
Mike Stone, BEXSc
**

Have viruses been isolated? Yes or no?

No, at least not in the sense of separating them from other things.

I have presented multiple scientific papers showing that has occurred.

Quote them saying it then.

Have viruses RNA been sequenced? Yes or no?

No. From everything I've read, they've been sequencing various flotsam found in swabs. No solid evidence that any of it was from viruses.

Have viruses been grown in a tissue culture? Yes or no?

Again, no.

 

[Taichiliberal]

 

[Scott]

In retrospect, I think I should have been more specific. Can you -quote- a paper detailing evidence that they have isolated a virus? Not going to wade through a bunch of papers trying to find your evidence for you.

As I suspected. You aren't really interested in evidence.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

You can read the papers. Why should I quote the entire thing here?

I never said you should quote the entire thing. I wanted evidence that they had isolated a virus. I now see that you have in fact quoted some of it that appears to be relevant, so thank you.

Can viruses be isolated ? Yes or no.

I don't believe there is any solid evidence that biological viruses have ever been isolated.

**
we compared different approaches to virus isolation. Based on virus yield, we show that deionized water lysis is the fastest and most effective method for releasing LCMV MX infectious viral particles from persistently infected cells.
**

**
Conclusion
The concentration and purification of viruses by
ultrafiltration is virtually independent of the chemical
properties and the structure of the virus particles. As viruses
have a size ranging from tens up to several hundred
nanometers, they are typically several orders of magnitude
bigger than even the largest protein complexes.7 Therefore,
most viruses are unfailingly retained on membranes with
MWCOs up to 1,000 kDa. The exact specifications of the
ideal ultrafiltration membranes depend on the purpose of
ultrafiltration and the subsequent application(s).
**

**
(A) Both TT-1 and Vero cells (2 × 106/10 cm plate) were infected with AMPV at an MOI of 0.1. Virions collected by the F-T method, virus media containing virus before DW treatment (medium), and virus DW (DW) were clarified by centrifugation at 3000× g for 15 min. AMPV titers were determined as previously described and enumerated by plaque-forming unit/milliliter (pfu/mL) and data are the mean ± sem from three independent experiments. (B) Based on the virus titers, total numbers of virus particles were measured and plotted. Data are the mean ± sem.
**

I admit I can't refute these points right away- I certainly haven't studied virology to the extent necessary. However, I believe that what they are calling "isolation" is not actually that at all, something that doctors referenced in the opening post have said.

 

[Scott]

So you claim. I trust the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka's mathematician more. However, I decided to look to see if any other Cov 2 virus claims had been debunked. Turns out, there are plenty:

"germ" FOIs - James Lyons-Weiler, Sundhedsstyrelsen, U Toronto, Statens Serum, CDC, UK HSA - no records! | substack.com

She also debunked 2 papers claiming to show the alleged existence of the Cov 2 virus in a substack post of hers. The first was the original paper, the second was a paper by Turonova et al, from October, 2020. Quoting her:

**

The 1st paper we looked at is by Zhu et al., February 2020:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
Supplementary Appendix:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017/suppl_file/nejmoa2001017_appendix.pdf

This paper contains contains zero protein analysis, and one of the authors admitted in writing to rockstar investigative journalist and Virus Mania co-author Torsten Engelbrecht way back in March 2020 that they didn't purify the particles that they had passed off as a “the virus”:
https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/wp-content/uploads/NaZhu_noSARSCoV2purification-1.pdf

So clearly that paper did not pass the test.

Really? If the paper didn't pass the test why is there no valid argument about the paper?

What do you mean by "no valid argument against the paper"?

Why rely on a single statement to a news agency that could have been translated wrong?
Have you read the paper?

Not directly, though the Dr Stefan Lanka's mathematician references it often.

If they didn't purify the virus, how could they include electron microscope images of the virus?

Your mistake is in trusting that the electron microscope images are in fact depicting viruses instead of various microbes of unknown provenance.

It seems that neither you nor your authors can explain the picture.

But then I followed down the rabbithole of the claim that the virus wasn't purified.
As to the email that supposedly claimed the virus wasn't purified, the question is about how the RNA was processed. Did you forget how that is done already and how reads are only 100-150 long?
Claiming that the virus isn't purified because one part of the process breaks the viruses apart shows either a failure to understand the process or an attempt to lie. Which is it?

They admitted they didn't purify the virus, no need to make this more complicated than it is.

The 2nd paper is by Turonova et al., October 2020:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd5223
(you have to open a separate file from inside this paper to find the Methods).

This is the same paper that Dan and his colleague

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634274279192666112

attempted to “debunk” Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman with back in 2021, thinking they were citing a “scientific” paper showing the existence of the imaginary/deadly replicating disease bomb “SARS-COV-2”.

Turonova et al. did not find and purify potential “virus” particles from a clinical sample, sequence and characterize them, and study them with valid controlled experiments.

Rather, the authors explain that a so-called “isolate MUC-1” had been provided to them by Dr. G. Dobler, Bundeswehr Institute for Microbiology, Denmark.

We actually know that this so-called “isolate MUC-1” was a man-made monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi concoction cooked up by the infamous pair, Corman and Drosten, as confirmed by my emails with Dr. Dobler and a bit of research outlined here:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/muc-1-aka-muc-imb1-just-more-corman-drosten-monkey-business-fraud/.[/B]
**

Source:
Dan and Me: A love story | substack.com

A paper that doesn't claim to purify a virus is not evidence of anything other than a disingenuous attempt on your part to not deal with the papers that do show viruses being purified.

The irony here is that the paper was trotted out as evidence that viruses were in fact being purified, by 2 different believers in virology.

 

[Scott]

I was reading an article published a week ago from Mike Stone's Viroliegy's newsletter called Just One Particle. I think it reinforces the evidence that no virologist has ever truly isolated any virus, based on the fact that even virologists are essentially admitting it. Quoting from it:

**
Last week, I took a look at the very illogical excuse that virologists make in regard to why they are unable to purify and isolate the particles that are claimed to be “viruses” directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. As a reminder, below is the response I received from biologist Thomas Baldwin, who studies “pathogenic” plant “viruses” and goes by the Twitter handle Sense_Strand:

**
I'm claiming there aren't enough viruses in a sample to purify and isolate (yield loss) and infect a sample size for replication.

[ad hominem removed]
**

It is claimed that there are just not enough of these “viral” particles within the fluids and thus, the purification procedures will result in too little of the “virus” remaining after these steps are performed. Due to this lack of particles, it is claimed that the “viruses” can not be found in electron microscopy images, and it is for this very reason that the “virus” particles must be grown in cell culture so that the “virus” can replicate to a large enough number in order to be visualized and studied. While I won’t rehash my counterargument here, I will allow Debunked to help me demonstrate why this is a ridiculous excuse:



When virologists claim incredible numbers like that, it is pretty reasonable to conclude that there should be plenty of “viral” particles within the fluids of a sick animal or human in order to purify, isolate, visualize, characterize, and study. Alas, virologists defiantly cling to their laughable excuse in order to cover up for the fact that they just cannot find the assumed “viral” particles anywhere directly within the fluids. While this statement clearly defies logic, the lack of “virus” is only one aspect of the excuse. There is another component that is used to explain why, even if they could purify and isolate the particles, it wouldn’t ultimately matter. Beyond the lack of enough “viral” particles within the fluids, virologists claim that there are not enough “infectious” particles present after purification in order to be able to “infect” an animal or human on order to prove pathogenicity. It is stated that this purification process damages the “virus” and causes it to lose “infectivity.” This excuse was illustrated in a response interviewer Djamel Tahi received from HIV “discoverer” Luc Montagnier:

**
“I believe we published in Science (May 1983) a gradient which showed that the RT had exactly the density of 1.16. So one had a ‘peak’ which was RT. So one has fulfilled this criterion for purification. But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, retroviruses are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity.”

“I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much.”
**

Source:
Montagnier’s Monster | viroliegy.com


As can be seen, if the particles are purified, it is assumed that they lose their “infectivity.” Thus, virologists must not touch their fragile little “virus” particles too much or they will be damaged and will not work properly. With statements like this, it makes the story about how these non-living entities somehow survive the harsh environmental conditions of the great outdoors in order to invade a body, bypass the hosts “immune system,” and hijack the cells so that it can create more copies of itself, seem rather ridiculous. According to virologists, in order to retain “infectivity,” the “virus” particles must remain unpurified and proceed to be mixed into a foreign animal or cancer cell with toxic antibiotics, antifungals, fetal calf blood, chemicals and “nutrients,” etc. and incubated for days. However, this is normally not enough to create the necessary “infective” particles, so virologists will remove the top layer of one culture and then add it to another culture with a fresh round of toxic compounds mixed in. This new culture is then incubated further until signs of cell death are observed. Only then can there be enough “infectious viral” particles to visualize and establish pathogenicity.
**

Source:
Just One Particle | substack.com

 

[Scott]

Mike stone just published another article on viruses that I thought was interesting. Quoting the introduction and the conclusion...

**
Beyond adherence to the scientific method, a key factor in determining whether or not the evidence gathered during research is indeed scientific rather than pseudoscientific is a simple concept known as falsifiability. This idea was introduced by scientific philosopher Karl Popper in 1935 in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Essentially, what falsifiability means is that, in order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it must have the abilty to be disproven. Someone should be able to conceivably design an experiment that could prove the hypothesis or theory wrong. If a hypothesis or theory is capable of being proven wrong and yet it is supported by experimental evidence of its truth, then it can be considered as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

[snip]

Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science.

**
“The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications.

There is a corresponding difference that Popper sees in the form of the claims made by sciences and pseudo-sciences: Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.”
**

Source:
Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science | Scientific American

Virology allows for:

“Viruses” to be found within the sick and also within the healthy.

Theoretical antibodies to be found in the “infected” and not found in the “infected,” while being either a sign of “protection” or a sign of chronic disease.

The presence of the “virus” within the cell culture determined by both the observation of the cytopathogenic effect as well as the lack of the observation of this efffect.

The same particles seen in EM images claimed to be either pathogenic “viruses” or non-pathogenic “virus-like” particles.



It is clear that there is no way to be able to falsify the “viral” hypothesis when contradictory concepts are ultimately allowed to coexist in order to explain away inconvenient findings. The “viral” theory is then reworked to allow for the incorporation of the contradictory findings to further confirm and support the unfalsifiable premise. Germ theory and virology are a circular system devoid of logic and reason that have been deceiving humanity for the last two centuries. Isn't it far past time to demand that they show how their hypotheses and theories are falsifiable?
**

Source:
Unfalsifiable | substack.com