• Does The COVID-19 Coronavirus Really Exist?

    Posted December 5, 2020: by Bill Sardi

    In early 2020 when an outbreak of pneumonia of “unknown etiology” was reported in Wuhan, China, a report was published in the journal EUROSURVEILLANCE on the detection of a novel coronavirus which later came to be identified as COVID-19. 

    Since viruses cannot be grown in a lab dish (that is because viruses can only replicate inside a living cell), they cannot be cultured and multiplied like a bacteria sample.  So, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was utilized and is the standard test to confirm COVID-19 infection today. 

    PCR involves a method to rapidly produce millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample sufficient enough for analysis, given that coronaviruses are only 80-220 nanometers in size.  COVID-19 is reported to be 120 nanometers in diameter.  (A nanometer = 1 billionth of a meter) Here is an electron micrograph image of a coronavirus.

    Electron micrograph image of coronavirus

    A viral genome sequence was released to laboratories for analysis and the conclusion was it was “very closely related to members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).”  Based upon reliable confirmation of the PCR test using “virus isolates,” the PCR test became the standard test for COVID-19.

    The PCR test was initially validated by real viral isolates from the prior SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak of 2003.

    However, researchers concede: “In the present case of 2019-nCoV (COVID-19), virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community.”

    In other words, the scientific community did not have a complete virus to use to confirm COVID-19, only a “viral genome sequence,” a snippet of genetic material “very closely related” to COVID-19.

    That was January 2020.  Fast forward to December 2020.  The FDA published a guidebook for PCR testing of COVID-19, marked “for emergency use only.”  The title of the publication is: CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, and was initially published in February, 2020, and then re-published in July.

    On page 42 of that document it says this:

    Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full-length RNA of known titer spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

    There was still no isolate of the virus months after a pandemic was announced.  All laboratories are relying on a provided snippet of RNA genetic material that “mimics” or “is very closely related” to COVID-19.

    That’s like telling someone that you met a man who says he has an identical twin and we presume the other sibling must look like his twin, but we have never seen the other twin brother.  So do we even know he exists?

    On page 40 of that FDA publication it says this:

    Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with SARS-CoV-2 but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.  Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

    We only have some genetic material to confirm COVID-19 exists.  And it may or may not be the “definitive cause” of the disease. And they call this science?  And we are testing everyone in the world to see if they have a virus that resembles a coronavirus that caused an outbreak in 2003!  And we must vaccinate every human on the earth.

    Credit to David K. Lifschultz for the above citations.

Comments are closed.