December 3, 2021
Peter Smith, Canadian Anti-Hate Network, is identified as the author of an article containing false and misleading statements regarding both “COVID-19” and 2 gentlemen who I happen to have a great deal of respect for.
The gentlemen in question are quite capable of speaking for and defending themselves, but I wish to address Peter’s damaging and false claim that the alleged “COVID-19 virus” has been isolated (a necessary step in proving the existence of an alleged “virus”).
Here is Peter’s article:
A quote from Peter’s article:
In this quote, Peter included hyperlinks to 3 resources that he seems to believe prove that the alleged “virus” has been isolated. These are the only pieces of “isolation” evidence provided in his article. Let’s check them out.
The links point to 1) a webpage of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2) a Globe and Mail article attributed to Ivan Semeniuk, published March 13, 2020, and 3) a March 2020 preprint of a “SARS-COV-2 isolation” study.
The “SARS-CoV-2 Viral Culturing at CDC” webpage was last updated Dec. 29, 2020 and claims that:
“SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community“,
“SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repository“.
CDC explains that “the virus” was “grown” by CDC researchers, and lists all the fabulous ways that the “strains” are being used to further the good of humanity.
Wow, so impressive. This is all the evidence we really need, right? It’s been isolated, end of story! Only a kook would suggest otherwise. And hey, the CDC even provided a time line of their epic accomplishment and a link for more details.
“On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture…”
Wait a minute. What was that again? They immediately placed the clinical specimen into cell culture. Huh?
Does this mean that the patient sample was immediately placed into a cell culture – a source of genetic contamination? Surely they mean that the virus was placed into a cell culture after it was isolated from the patient. Because if the patient sample was immediately contaminated with a cell culture, how could it then be established scientifically that the patient was infected with a new virus? I’m confused. Let’s keep reading.
“On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.”
Fabulous, but how did they determine that a virus, and specifically SARS-COV-2, was even present? I’m still confused. Let’s keep reading.
“On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.”
Woah, talk about putting the cart before the horse. Let’s keep reading and figure this out.
“An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.“
Ok, well we will definitely have to check out that article and get these details sorted out.
So the link for the article takes us to “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” by Jennifer Harcourt (affiliation: CDC) et al.
Jennifer Harcourt… That is also the name of the first author listed in the study cited by Peter. They are the same study. Peter cited the preprint, and the CDC’s webpage links to the final published version. So let’s focus on the final version, which is published in the CDC’s own journal Emerging Infectious Diseases.
In the Specimen Collection section of this CDC paper, we find that “clinical specimens from a case-patient … were collected on day 3 postsymptom onset, placed in 2–3 mL of viral transport medium, used for molecular diagnosis, and frozen. Confirmed PCR-positive specimens were aliquoted and refrozen until virus isolation was initiated...”
That’s interesting, because a colleague of mine noticed that the CDC’s Standard Operating Procedure for viral transport medium includes fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs. So… this means that the clinical specimens were contaminated with cow material before the molecular diagnosis (via PCR) and “isolation” procedure even began.
That seems strange. And troubling. And unscientific. But let’s keep reading and see how they isolated the virus from these contaminated patient/cow specimens.
The Methods contain a section on Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation. In that order? Hmm. More confusion.
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage.”
So, in the CDC’s mind, culturing a patient sample in a cell line and “virus isolation” are the same step. Iiiiiinteresting.
And what are Vero CCL-81 cells?
Google search. First link: a company called ATCC lists Vero CCL-81 as animal cells.
Organism: Cercopithecus aethiops.
Derivation: The Vero cell line was initiated from the kidney of a normal adult African green monkey on March 27, 1962…
Passage history: The cell line was brought to the Laboratory of Tropical Virology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health in the 93rd passage from Chiba University by B. Simizu on June 15, 1964.
And, under Required Products:
“These products are vital for the proper use of this item and have been confirmed as effective in supporting functionality. If you use alternative products, the quality and effectiveness of the item may be affected. Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium…; Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)…”
More fetal bovine serum. Seriously? Fetal bovine serum and kidney epithelial cells from an African green monkey are necessary to “isolate a virus”. You can’t make this stuff up.
Back to the supplier, ATCC. Their product sheet states: “This product is intended for laboratory research use only. It is not intended for any animal or human therapeutic use, any human or animal consumption, or any diagnostic use.“
Back to the CDC study:
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics… We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…
When CPEs [Cytopathic effects aka harm to the monkey cells] were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.“
Did you see anything in that blurb about isolating a virus? Me neither. Monkey cells, fetal bovine serum, swab specimens and drugs mixed together. Harmful effects to poisoned monkey cells irrationally, unscientifically attributed to “the virus”. Nothing isolated/purified, not even from the monkey cell mixture.
No virus purified, characterized, sequenced or studied with controlled experiments. No virus was even looked for in the patient samples. What the hell?
THIS is what’s passed off as “isolating a virus”?
Hmm, well what about that Globe and Mail article that Peter cited, the one with the smug photo of Dr. Rob Kozak and Dr. Samira Mubareka of the University of Toronto, and Dr. Arinjay Banerjee of McMaster University?
Fortunately I’ve seen that article before, many times, and dealt with that “isolation” claim well over a year ago.
In fact, I even obtained Freedom of Information responses from all 4 of the institutions involved, and the CDC, showing that none of them have any record of a “virus” having been isolated/purified, from any patient sample, by anyone on the planet – all of which have been publicly available on my website for well over a year now.
I’m actually surprised that Peter, who is clearly familiar with the claim that “the virus” has never been isolated, never came across my FOIs. Or the ever-growing collection of FOI responses from institutions (138 of them as I write this) in over 25 countries, showing that no one on the planet has any record of a “COVID-19 virus” having been isolated/purified from any patient sample, by anyone, period.
Despite Peter’s article, and despite the list of further useless/fraudulent “isolation” studies, and published “virus genomes” that Peter later emailed to Gabriel (shown at the bottom of this page), it is 100% clear that the alleged virus has never been isolated/purified from any patient sample.
And because “it” has never been purified, we also know that “it” has never been sequenced, characterized or studied with controlled experiments.
Instead, virologists have always worked with soups of material that they assume contains “the virus”. And wild assumptions have no place in science or logic.
In other words, there is zero proof or compelling evidence that the alleged disease-spreading virus, allegedly composed of a 30,000 base pair RNA strand and a spikey protein shell, actually exists.
It is 100% clear that “the COVID-19 virus”, like viruses in general, is purely theoretical and imaginary, with “genomes” that are fabricated electronic codes corresponding to nothing in the physical realm.
If Peter actually begins reading the Methods sections of the “virus isolation and sequencing” studies, instead of relying on headlines and Abstracts, he will be able to see this for himself. Not just for the imaginary “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”), but “viruses” in general.
Because virology is not a science.
Whether or not Peter would then admit and report these facts, or
retract his misleading, inaccurate claims, is another matter altogether.
Peter’s list, that he wrongly claimed shows proof of the isolation of “the virus” and that “it” has been fully sequenced multiple times:
Either Peter has, like a lot of people, not read the Methods used in these “isolation” studies, or he is intentionally playing along with the unscientific and absurd practice of blaming harm to starved and poisoned cells on a phantom virus that was never actually shown to exist.
And, either Peter has not read the Methods used to conjure up a “virus genome”, or he is playing along with fabricated, fraudulent “genomes” patched together from zillions of sequences (allegedly) detected in patient samples and cell cultures.
Note to Peter:
Yawn. I read Siouxsie’s slanderous, red-herring article long ago.
So you are aware of the FOI collection, interesting.
Well, if you actually read the requests, you should have noticed that the vast majority of them make no mention of Koch’s Postulates whatsoever. Because we know that a strict application of Koch’s would not be possible, even if imaginary viruses existed.
The requests only ask for records of isolation/purification, which, like it or not, is necessary for proving the existence of a “virus”. No matter how inconvenient for virologists and all the related indu$trie$.
Aside from being focused almost entirely on this red herring topic of Koch’s Postulates, Siouxsie’s article relies heavily on ad hominen attacks and contains zero citations for any studies proving the existence of “the virus” or any other “virus”.