How We Know COVID Does Not Exist
On January 23, 2021, NBC News broadcast an interview in which China’s Chief epidemiologist, Dr. Wu Zunyou, said: “They didn’t isolate the virus, and that is the problem.” This was not a "conspiracy theorist" or "fringe" website, nor was this a newscast skeptical of COVID. It was an unintentional revelation of truth.
In November of 2021 we learn that seven laboratories at seven universities in the United States couldn't find Covid-19 in ANY of 1,500 supposedly "positive" tests, and they are suing the CDC. Dr. Derek Knauss said:
“When my lab team and I subjected the 1500 supposedly positive Covid-19 samples to Koch’s postulates and put them under an SEM (electron microscope), we found NO Covid in all 1500 samples. We found that all 1500 samples were primarily Influenza A, and some Influenza B, but no cases of Covid. We did not use the bulls*** PCR test.
When we sent the rest of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a couple of the labs at the University of California, they came up with the same result: NO COVID. They found Influenza A and B. Then we all asked the CDC for viable samples of Covid. The CDC said they can’t give them, because they don’t have those samples.
So we came to the hard conclusion through all our research and lab work that Covid-19 was imaginary and fictitious. The flu was only called ‘Covid,’ and most of the 225,000 deaths were from co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, pulmonary emphysema, etc.. They got the flu which further weakened their immune systems, and they died."
Last but not least, we have Michael Yeadon, who was formerly the Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer for Allergy & Respiratory Research at Pfizer Pharmaceutical. He has risked his reputation to go on record claiming that "the Covid pandemic is a fraud. [In the video linked to below,] He explains why masks are useless, why distancing is absurd, why PCR tests are meaningless, why quarantining healthy people is stupid, why variants of virus strains are no threat, and why Covid vaccines should be rejected."
What About Claims To The Contrary?
Many of the "fact-checking" sites claim, of course, that COVID has been isolated. Here is a closer look at the claims made by the Full Fact website.
To begin with, these sites always begin with dubious claims. This one says the "erroneous" claim is that "The Covid-19 virus has not been isolated as per Koch’s postulates, and this means PCR tests do not work." Notice how they frame the argument as somehow being specifically about "Koch's Postulates" and its bearing on the validity of PCR "tests."
Their response is that "This is untrue. Covid-19 has been isolated many times. It does not need to adhere to Koch’s postulates as it is a virus, and Koch’s rules have been widely disregarded now. Covid-19 PCR tests are generally very accurate."
Let's examine these claims individually.
Has the COVID-19 virus been isolated? One article in the University of Auckland's News and Opinion section claims that there is an issue with "people sticking rigidly to a specific definition of the word isolation." The author relies on the ignorance of the general population as to how specific terminology works in fields like medicine and law.
In law, words have canonical meanings that cannot change. When I use the word "consideration," you might think I am referring to thinking about something, but in legalese this word has only one meaning: what one party has offered another as an exchange for something else. This word cannot be used in a different manner in legal documents, because that would cause confusion when reading and applying older documents.
Likewise in medicine, when one doctor says that a patient needs something, or that something has to be done, there cannot be room for interpretation. Of necessity, words have meaning. Therefore, isolation cannot simply mean that a sample was taken, but that the virus in question has been completely isolated from all other matter. There is only one correct definition, no matter how you argue the fact. As we have seen in the articles and quotes at the beginning of this article, multiple reliable sources have testified that COVID-19 has never been isolated, and their claims have never been met with proof, but with denial, cancellation, and name-calling. How professional!
The Reuter's Fact-Checking Team, in their article on this subject, link to a 2011 British Medical Journal article wherein they say the author "has specifically rejected suggestions that purification is necessary when isolating viruses." What makes this especially interesting is the fact that this article is about HIV/AIDS, which closely mirrors our current fake pandemic in many ways. For starters, Dr. Fauci (the very same!) was put in charge of that "pandemic," and also fraudulently used the PCR methodology at that time, raising the extreme ire of Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR!
Next they quote a doctor as saying that “SARS-CoV2 has been sampled millions of times over from infected people, including those originally found to be infected in China.” Again, we remind the reader of the accidental testimony of Dr. Wu Zunyou on ABC News, who let slip that “They didn’t isolate the virus, and that is the problem.” We also point the reader to an article Defending Idaho put out on July 13th, 2020, entitled, "Lies, Big Lies, and COVID-19," which contains the following:
“Crowe described a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case. “She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”
“Now why was she important? Well there was only one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they thought it was. But secondly, she had the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right? So, four people in his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those symptoms without the virus, then you, you’ve got to say, well, why couldn’t everybody else’s symptoms be explained by whatever she had? I mean, maybe they, they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick, but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus.”
This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the aforementioned samples from "infected people, including those originally found to be infected in China."
We would also like to point out the following phrase from Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of a lab called Viral Forensics:
"…we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will."
Next, the Full Fact folks would have us believe that Koch’s postulates do not apply to COVID-19, since they are "not a good measure of what causes disease in 2020." It is funny, then, that the COVID-believing journal, Nature, didn't have an issue printing "Koch's postulates fulfilled for SARS virus" back in 2003. Full Fact claims that "Koch’s postulates weren’t written for viruses," but the National Institutes of Health website saw no problem applying Koch's Postulates to "viral agents" when they published "Amending Koch's postulates for viral disease: When 'growth in pure culture' leads to a loss of virulence," back in January of 2017.
Finally, Full Fact claims that "We also know that PCR tests are identifying the virus that causes Covid-19 and working well." Defending Idaho has written about this subject many times, including quotes from the creator of the PCR methodology himself, Kary Mullis, who said:
"I don't think you can misuse PCR. No, the results, the interpretation of it… See… if they could find this virus in you at all – and with PCR if you do it well you can find almost anything in anybody, it starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else right. I mean because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there's just very few molecules that you don't have at least one single one of them in your body, okay? So that could be thought of as a misuse of it…
PCR is… just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That's why it doesn't tell you that you're sick…"
Of course, the University of Auckland's News and Opinion section also thinks they know better than the actual inventor of PCR, referring to the PCR methodology as "the polymerase chain reaction test."
They also claim that "The PCR test looks for specific genetic sequences that are only found in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That makes it very suitable as a screening tool as it has such a low false-positive rate – people are highly unlikely to test positive unless the virus is present in the sample. We know this is true from all the thousands of negative tests we’ve seen here in New Zealand."
Quick question: If a test that isn't a test comes back "negative" some of the time, does that prove that its "positives" are really positive"? Where's the science in all this "science"?
The University of Auckland website even has the audacity to claim that "The most crucial thing to understand about the PCR test is that it is basically us asking: was the virus present in sufficient quantities to detect when the person was tested?" Oy… Do you people not listen to the guys who invent the tools you use/abuse? About a hundred words back, remember? "PCR is… just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something." As Dr. Mullis explained in the full video that quote comes from, you can literally have a single microbe of something in your body, and the polymerase chain reaction is capable of making it into billions of something. "That's why it doesn't tell you that you're sick…"
Another issue with this claim is that the Investigative Corona Committee Germany says:
"SARS-COV-2… was not cultivated at the beginning of the event and later has not been found in nature in the form documented as a computer file in early 2020."
To which Defending Idaho added that "The 'form documented as a computer file' – or digital model – is what hospitals and Walgreens employees have been PCR 'testing' for, in the absence of an actual isolated virus particle."
Towards the end of their "fact-check" article, Full Fact claims that "PCR tests used in Covid-19 testing are extremely sensitive and specific at detecting Covid-19 and do not confuse other coronaviruses, such as ones that cause the common cold, for Covid-19."
Again, they hope you are ignorant of the fact that the CDC issued a lab alert in July of 2021, recommending doctors switch to "a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses." In other words, to use new tests that can tell the difference between COVID and the flu. We here remind the reader about the opening material of this article, in which 7 universities tested 1500 samples of "people [who] tested 'positive' [for] Covid-19. ALL people were simply found to have Influenza A, and to a lesser extent Influenza B."
Amazing how that works!Further Viewing/Reading:*Highly Recommended Viewing!Kary Mullis - The Full Interview with Gary Null
“No Infection or Illness Can be Accurately Diagnosed with the PCR Test”