No “gold standard” = no virus

I am not sure we are clear among ourselves about the existence of a virus, whether it is a laboratory invention, or just an old virus being recycled under a new name. My own opinion is none of the above. There is no virus. None was needed.

The pandemic consists of two elements: A wild and inflammatory news media that is lying about everything related to the virus, and the PCR* test. That’s all that is needed to run a fake pandemic. As I’ve said before, the test is the virus.  No other virus need apply.

But we should talk about the virus, as it is indeed a small part of the hoax. Sadly, the scientific IQ of the American public resides somewhere between that of an amoeba and a rainbow trout. So what follows is academic in this sense, that it is important for our readers,  but wasted on any debate you might be having with ordinary civilians.

Keep in mind that even as I have done much reading and thinking about this subject, I am narrowly focused, and can easily overlook stuff. I therefore refer you to a comment left yesterday by Oregonmatt. He’s got a broader base of knowledge than I do. Barbm has also left useful comments here and here.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, a good man of course, talks about virus isolation at length in many of his videos. He is linked in the blogroll here. But he is confusing in a way, as he says, as I read him, that the first step in the isolation process is isolation of the virus. As my old high school teacher used to say (heavy Irish brogue), “Brown paper is brown paper.” You can’t define something by merely restating what it is. He seems to say that to isolate the virus, you must first isolate the virus.

Then follow filtration and purification. Once done, if successful, they achieve what is called a “gold standard.”

I would make the total process to be more like the following:

  • Identification of a diseased person.
  • Drawing of a tissue, fluid or blood sample from that person.
  • Centrifuge, or spinning the sample drawn at a very high rate of speed to force smaller particles to the end of the test tube. If there is a virus, it should reside there.

At this point what they have is chicken noodle soup maybe containing the virus along with a lot of other stuff. Much more work has to be done.

  • Filtration – the soup from above has to be repeatedly refined though smaller and smaller filters to remove all undesirable non-viral particles.
  • Purification – once done to such a degree that any gene sequence drawn from the purified sample always yields the same product, it can be said that they have indeed “isolated” the virus.

This is the gold standard. However, keep in mind that achieving it does not necessarily mean that it is the cause of the disease. It could be that the virus was a mere passenger and that the illness has some other cause. Modern virology asserts that correlation equals causation. No one in the medical professions publicly questions germ theory.

That caution in mind, if they then want to test the public for spread of the virus, they have a somewhat usable tool in the PCR machine to do this. The results will not be terribly reliable, that is, they can identify viral presence, but not quantity of viruses present. Thus, the test should only be used on sick people.

But without a gold standard, it’s all academic.

The Wuhan, China virologists back in February did some very sloppy work. They apparently stopped the isolation process after centrifuge, never bothering to carry on with the rest of the process. It could be that they were pressured by people dying around them to come up with something quick, but that does not explain why they have not completed the isolation process in the ensuing months. No one has.

I have an explanation for that behavior: They were told to come up with something quick and not to worry about follow-up, as the planning for the pandemic did not require an actual virus. They just went through the motions.

The PCR testing that has been done since that time produces random results in my view, neither wrong or right, but simply useless. Sometimes they are positive,  most times negative, sometimes “indeterminate.” But important fallout from the test is the public perception that testing positive means you have the disease. It actually means nothing, since there is no gold standard. Anyway, has anyone explained how the virus, if it even exists, causes disease? Further, can anyone explain how someone can test positive for the virus and so have the disease, and yet exhibit no symptoms?

That last part, asymptomatic carriers, it a vital element being used to keep the hoax alive. As I see it, there can be no such thing. Back in the 1930s a Rockefeller Foundation scientist, Thomas Rivers, was tasked with coming up with an alternative to Koch’s Postulates for viruses. KPs state that for a pathogen to be labeled as the cause of a disease, it 1) must be found in sick people, 2) not in healthy people, and further 3) that the disease must then be replicated in a living subject so that 4) the pathogen can be found once more to verify it as the cause of the disease.

Rivers merely set aside parts one and two of KPs aside, saying that mere presence of the virus in sick people was enough.  Those who also carried the virus but were not sick could be called asymptomatic carriers. A more logical conclusion would have been that, since viruses appear in  both sick and healthy people, that viruses are not the cause of the disease. Had he done that, we might have a much better health care system in place today. Instead we are stuck with one riddled with pseudos, quacks and criminals.

I refer you to the following article in Global Research: National Security Alert: COVID Tests Scientifically Fraudulent, Epidemic of False Positives. In it authors DeGraw, Engelbrecht and Demeter assail the current testing going on. Most interesting (the whole paper is readable for the layman) is that the authors contacted the authors of four scientific papers claiming to have isolated SARS-CoV-2, the virus that supposedly causes Covid-19 (a disease, by the way, that has no unique symptoms). They asked them all

“Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”

Here are the responses they got:

  • “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”
  • “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”
  • “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
  • “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

So what is the PCR test testing for? Apparently, a random RNA sequence. (It cannot test for an actual virus, as it was not designed for that purpose.) The sequence could be from anything, since the virus is not purified. It could be an actual virus, or a wombat. The pandemic is a house of cards kept upright by media lies and meaningless test results.

But it doesn’t matter, and has not mattered from the beginning. Newspapers and broadcasts each day report the number of positive tests, and that is all the public is ever told. For that reason, I assert that there is no virus. If there was, they would purify it.

And further, the test is the virus.

*PCR = “polymerase chain reaction,” a machine and process for which Dr. Kary Mullis was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry. Dr. Mullis insisted throughout his shortened life that his machine should not be used to hunt viruses. If you see the letters “RT” before PCR, it means “reverse transcriptase,” a process by which RNA is converted to DNA before testing. The machine can only work with DNA.

PS: This article by Jim West makes it appear that virologists never do any of the steps beyond centrifuge and goop – says West, “…senior editors of prominent Medical science publications have decried medical science in general as entering the dark age of fraud.” As it stands now, the term “isolation” has no meaning, in fact, to them means mixing, making the word a form of oxymoron.

20 thoughts on “No “gold standard” = no virus”

  1. Pingback: Looking for the key to destroy the entire Coronavirushoax | Fakeologist.com

  2. In Germany the trolling is off the charts, they staged that huge demonstration on August 1, in Berlin. On stage, the whole muppet show of controlled opposition. TV crews focused on the freaks, and framed all attendants as such and “Corona Leugner”, deniers. As if people would deny climate, the flu, or the holocaust. Many people know the difference between tested positive and sick, conservative media report about it, but they keep mocking, and censor the comment sections, leaving mostly comments who don’t get it. Twitter is toxic too. This is not about a virus, it’s a psy op. There are similarities to the climate campaign last year, it’s divide, and more controlled demolition of the media and science. Both pandemic and climate are forecasted by computer models. One solution they may bring in will be some form of AI. Change is prepared by this, it’s dialectic. Berlin maybe was a first big “come together” moment too.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Good news everyone! Even though contact tracing is now an API on your phone and cannot be removed, it will not be activated … wait … unless activated … by government officials? I think that’s how it is going to roll. After all, almost 50% of those with phones are pissed about it and will refuse to use it. Coercion will be necessary. For me, it is simple: No more mobile phone.

    More good news! Apple iPhones now recognize your face even if you are wearing your mask!

    Like

    Reply

    1. You need a corresponding app to use the API hooks. That install will be your decision.

      Of course, if you want to buy food and gas, you’ll probably need to scan your covid pass app. That may influence your decision to install it.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Pay as you go phones are are still available as another option. You do not need ID to get one. You can use any name and address. I’ve not had my name or address connected to a mobile device for many years now. If they want to ‘contact trace’ me they will have to go look for Harold Crevasse (my friends call me Harry) at the local Chinese Diplomatic Mission. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the olden times flip phones still around as well. I think these must be dumb phones that cannot run apps. That in combination with the pay as you go might help one be a bit more untraceable.

      Like

      Reply

  4. on the long run we won’t be able to avoid smartphones. Paypal now requests a smartphone for transactions. They will send you a code which you then have to enter to finalize your transaction. Others will follow, that’s for sure. On the other side they close counters and shops everywhere forcing you to order more and more things online. From train tickets to everyday supplies. This way they will get rid of money, all small businesses, shops, etc. It’s a matter of time. Corona was only a part of it.
    And no, you cannot get a phone without an identification anymore. In Germany you have to use your digital personal id code or appear personally with your license for identification. So no phone number without an address. Young people love it anyway. And they love the masks too. Can’t get enough of it. Brave New World it is.

    Like

    Reply

    1. It’s been the same old story since some clever clown wrote about Apollo the physician pulling his son Asclepius from coronis’ womb of course.

      Bytheway barb, have you looked into macrophages in islets of langerhans with regard to synthetic insulin? I’ve been looking into the recombinant dna and synthetic insulin hustle for a while. Synthetic oil is just highly refined oil so I reckon synthetic insulin is just highly refined pancreas. Everyone should know by now that pastuer’s crony chamberland’s filter didn’t seperate bacteria from the so-called contagious living fluids. Shite, some of the micrographs even look like so called bacteriophages; but not quite as lunar lander-like of course…

      “But IMB researchers are also pursuing other angles. Professor Matt Sweet, Director of IMB’s Centre for Inflammation & Disease Research, is targeting the immune system as an alternate approach to fighting infections.
      “Our work is trying to understand how it detects and responds to infections,” Professor Sweet said.
      “Although new antibiotics are being developed, bacteria can rapidly evolve to defend against them. Of course, such approaches to combat bacterial infections are still incredibly important, because if there’s no antibiotic that can be used, you’re in serious trouble. But we’re trying another approach – to manipulate or ‘train’ the immune system to better defend against infection.”
      Professor Sweet’s research focuses on characterising genes and pathways in immune cells called macrophages, which both drive inflammation and are involved in the clearance of bacterial pathogens.
      “Macrophage” literally means big eater.
      “These are cells that are present in every tissue in our body. They detect danger – if we cut ourselves or have an infection, for example,” Professor Sweet said. “These cells are often long-lived, and they use a number of different strategies to defend against pathogens.”
      Sweet describes macrophages as the ‘garbage trucks of the body’, gobbling up and destroying pathogens and unwanted debris: “Once they take up the pathogen, they engage a range of different pathways to try to kill the ingested microorganism.””

      https://imb.uq.edu.au/article/2017/11/how-scientists-plan-beating-superbugs-no-antibiotics-required

      Like

      Reply

    1. This article, my friend, is post-worthy, especially your words … ‘do not comply.’ Do you mind putting it up as such?

      H and I enjoyed our meal with you at your haven … the food and surroundings and company were supreme.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Enjoyed your company a lot and will look forward to our next meeting. Can (post) do, but today framing the first “window wall” on the art/greenhouse project. A puzzle with pieces from here and there. An adventure in carpentry. This weekend, for sure.

        Like

        Reply

  6. The Big Pharma lobbyists are earning their keep:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/06/stop-coronavirus-compulsory-universal-vaccination-column/3289948001/

    Absolutely grotesque. So if there is no virus, why are they so badly wanting to shove a vaccine down our throats? What is so important about these chemicals?

    A few other important questions:
    1) If someone has already had the “virus,” why should he/she be compelled to receive this vaccine?
    2) What if the antibodies are worthless and it is the T-cells that make one immune to the disease? (vaccines develop antibodies; natural infection trains the T-cells)
    3) When has a vaccine ever been safe, much less one that is rushed and not truly tested for safety?

    Like

    Reply

  7. To critique a “virus”, do not be awed by the technology and language.

    Merely ask one question of those who claim virus existence, and add two followups.

    1) What is the seminal study that first claimed discovery of said virus?

    a) What text in the study describes isolation of the virus?

    They can’t rebut because isolation doesn’t actually occur. The word “isolate” is (in practice) merely redefined as “mixture”.

    b) What text in the study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors?

    This is necessary, because in our industrial world, poisons are an obvious potential threat.

    Virology:
    https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/08/viriso.html

    COVID study:
    https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/04/COVID2020.html

    Like

    Reply

      1. There is no virus, only partial RNA strands that could be drawn from anything. That’s all they could be doing, and yes, I think it is bogus. It is practice contact tracing, which, after all, has nothing to do with a virus and everything with herd management.

        Like

        Reply

      2. Medical science has an extremely bad reputation. Most of us bear the physical scars as evidence. So from now on, to be safe, we must err on the side of caution.

        While the article you provide is one more pretty flower from the COVID-19 tree of knowledge, where has its main root been verified?

        Virus existence and character must first be verified, as (for example) previously described.

        Like

        Reply

      3. “Is this completely bogus science as it does suggest a contagion”

        All of their ‘science’ for the last hundred plus years has suggested contagion. If you postulate a virus as the cause of disease, but can’t demonstrate one with your ‘science’, that is bogus. The posters above me point out that from square one, which is the existence of the virus, legitimate and necessary questions cannot be answered.

        The article referenced is good, slick propaganda, easy to like and swallow. Here’s one piece that is classic, and let’s us know we should buy what they are selling:

        “Britain has been at the forefront of the molecular genetics revolution, from deducing the double helix structure of the genetic material DNA to developing DNA fingerprinting and genetic sequencing (by double Nobel prize-winner Fred Sanger), and creating the world’s best-selling drugs.”

        In the article they say, “We have already tested 12 per cent of the Icelandic population of 360,000 people. We not only test for the presence of the virus, we also sequence the virus.”

        Question: If your ‘test’ can only detect a tiny genomic particle, say 8 or 16 bases long, how do you know it came from your virus, which you say is 30,000 bases long? How can you say it did not come from one of the millions of endogenous microbes, microvesicles, etc, that are there in your body available to be swabbed at any moment?

        Question: Are you saying that you sequence the ‘virus’ after you detect that tiny genetic fragment in me? How do you do that, when you only have, say, an 8 or 16 pair base from an unknown source? You wouldn’t be using computer modeling, would you, to create something you can’t demonstrate in real life? You wouldn’t do that, would you?

        Question: If you really did, once upon a time, find the WHOLE virus, and sequence it properly, why do you not use that WHOLE virus with its WHOLE genome in your test??

        The WHOLE article is full of questionable moments.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment