For the past eight months, I’ve been providing evidence that no one has proved the COVID virus exists.
Over
the past week, I’ve quoted two major sources---the CDC and the authors
of a major European study---who admit they did not have any virus. And
both of these groups were, at the same time, constructing a way to do a
diagnostic test for that very virus which wasn’t there.
I’ve
also pointed out that scientists throw around the phrase, “isolation of
the virus,” like short-order cooks slinging hash in a diner. The phrase
is used with incredible carelessness and deceptive imprecision.
Likewise,
researchers’ claims of having “sequenced” the genetic structure of the
virus are very misleading, because the sequencing is done without direct
observation of the virus. It is INFERRED from analyzing a piece of RNA
which is ASSUMED (not proved) to come from the virus.
Most
of these scientists are true believers. They accept, like dogma, the
standard and non-valid procedures for “isolating” and “sequencing” the
virus.
A
smaller number of scientists understand the hoax, but they remain
criminally silent---or they are actively perpetuating the hoax.
In
a similar vein---but without the absurd certainty---astronomers make
all sorts of inferences about what is occurring on distant planets; but
they support sending probes into space to actually see and record what
is happening there; and they admit they are frequently surprised and
shocked by what they find: a picture that contradicts many of their
inferences.
Not
so with virologists and geneticists. They utilize a closed system of
analysis, which automatically confirms what they already believe. This
is the furthest thing from science. This would be on the order of
claiming the devil is causing hurricanes, and then “proving it” with a
gibbering brand of abstract theology.
Of course, when it comes to viruses, the follow-up is censorship or ridicule of those who doubt theological “biology.”
If
a prestigious medical journal opened up its pages to an intelligent
debate about the existence of the COVID virus, remarkable things would
happen. In the light and fresh air of honest debate, all sorts of
skeletons would emerge from the closet. But such a debate is not
permitted.
Why? Obviously, because the result would be devastating.
Because
of the absence of such open and frank discussion, people are left with
two thoughts: a pandemic based on nothing is too astonishing to
consider; and a hundred years of official propaganda about germs (and
genes) as the ominous ever-present source of all disease is too
formidable to reject.
I
want to give you an idea what it’s like to encounter researchers’
arcane descriptions of “isolating the virus.” Here is a section from a
major Chinese study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine,
on February 20, 2020. This is the key study which “confirmed” that a new
virus was causing an outbreak in China. Title: “A Novel Coronavirus
from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019.” The section is: “Isolation
of Virus”. You’ll need hip boots and a machete as you wade your way
through it---
“Bronchoalveolar-lavage
fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport
medium was added. Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular
debris. The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial
cells,13 which had been obtained from airway specimens resected from
patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be
special-pathogen-free by NGS.14”
“Human
airway epithelial cells were expanded on plastic substrate to generate
passage-1 cells and were subsequently plated at a density of 2.5×105
cells per well on permeable Transwell-COL (12-mm diameter) supports.
Human airway epithelial cell cultures were generated in an air–liquid
interface for 4 to 6 weeks to form well-differentiated, polarized
cultures resembling in vivo pseudostratified [!] mucociliary
epithelium.13”
“Prior
to infection, apical surfaces of the human airway epithelial cells were
washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline; 150 μl of
supernatant from bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples was inoculated
onto the apical surface of the cell cultures. After a 2-hour incubation
at 37°C, unbound virus was removed by washing with 500 μl of
phosphate-buffered saline for 10 minutes; human airway epithelial cells
were maintained in an air–liquid interface incubated at 37°C with 5%
carbon dioxide. Every 48 hours, 150 μl of phosphate-buffered saline was
applied to the apical surfaces of the human airway epithelial cells, and
after 10 minutes of incubation at 37°C the samples were harvested.
Pseudostratified [!] mucociliary epithelium cells were maintained in
this environment; apical samples were passaged in a 1:3 diluted vial
stock to new cells. The cells were monitored daily with light
microscopy, for cytopathic effects, and with RT-PCR, for the presence of
viral nucleic acid in the supernatant. After three passages, apical
samples and human airway epithelial cells were prepared for transmission
electron microscopy...”
I
can guarantee one thing: If a medical journal opened up its pages to a
frank and protracted discussion, from all comers, about this “process of
isolation,” you would see fireworks exploding in all directions. Within
a few months, there would be raging global debate about the
authenticity of “isolation.”
The
density of the description in the China study is exactly why, for
months, I’ve been demanding a straightforward real-world experimental
test of the “new virus.”
You
line up 1000 patients who have been diagnosed with the new epidemic
illness. You remove tissue samples from all of them. You put these
samples through the above “isolation process.” You decide which patients
have a huge amount of virus in their bodies.
Those patients should certainly be ill.
Then LET’S SEE. Are they ill or are they running marathons?
Real world.
Not lab world.
This
study will never be done for one obvious reason. Unlike the
astoundingly complex manipulations that go on in the lab, this
real-world experiment has a yes or no answer. Are the patients ill or
healthy?
But that’s asking too much from these researchers. They would rather infer and assume whatever suits their fancy.
They never want the rubber to meet the road.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
No comments:
Post a Comment