File attachments:
AttachmentSize
A75521F2-87B4-4EAA-8B6B-9DF122F1B3FC.png62.08 KB
Language
Undefined
0
No votes yet
"Virology is not a science and never has been, quite the opposite! It is proven to be against it!
In all scientific publications of claimed disease-causing viruses, scientific fraud has been committed by virologists.All publications lack the necessary control experiments that could remove any doubt.
- viruses were only an idea from the beginning and therefore there was nothing to isolate
- fact checkers", TV experts and also some well-known scientists from the critic scene argue that there very well would have been an isolation.
- it is believed that the tissue would be completely transformed into viruses by the infection - the tissue dies and only the viruses remain -because a supposedly decisive factor has been brought into the laboratory from the outside in the form of the infected material with which the tissue grown is inoculated.
- the basic rules of molecular biology and experimental biochemistry are violated.
- After "isolation in cell cultures", virologists proceed to the sequencing of nucleic acid from: Humans and/or cows, monkeys, bacteria, harmful and foreign substances.
- virologists never speak of extracting RNA directly from a "virus", but of a supposed "viral lysate", "viral isolate", "primary isolate", cell culture supernatant or a sample without cell cultures (swab, balf). And this is what the above- mentioned mixture of RNA is all about!
Source Using Deep L Translate
https://telegra.ph/10-Virologische-wissenschaftliche-Veröffentlichungen-als-ein-repräsentatives-Beispiel-für-Dokumentierten-wissenschaftlichen-Betr-03-18
10 scientific publications in virology as a representative example of documented scientific fraud❗️
Virology is not a science and never has been, quite the opposite! It is proven to be against it!
In all scientific publications of claimed disease-causing viruses, scientific fraud has been committed by virologists. All publications lack the necessary control experiments that could remove any doubt.
Virologists are blatantly abusing the basic principles of molecular biology and experimental biochemistry.
For a viral genome (hereditary strand of the claimed virus) to be considered valid evidence, it must first be shown that the entity being sequenced actually exists in reality.
One cannot simply assume that an invisible "virus" is present in an unpurified sample from the outset without ever verifying that this is indeed the case. This requires that the particles called "viruses" be found in a state that is completely free of contaminants and foreign substances and has been separated from everything else.
For this to happen, the sample must undergo various purification steps (centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc.) to prove that it exists in an isolated state:
Only then can evidence of pathogenicity be provided using the purified particles as a valid independent variable to determine cause and effect.
Only then can the particles identified in EM images be said to represent "viruses".
Only then can one speak of having obtained a genome.
Only then can the "virus" be fully and perfectly characterised.
Without purification, there are numerous host cell organelles and other proteins, microorganisms, bacteria etc. in the sample and thus there can be no question of isolation!
That such a "purification" (i.e. isolation) is an indispensable prerequisite for detecting viruses and creating valid antibody and PCR tests based on them is also said by scientists who are among the most renowned in the world, including:
White and Fenner: "It is an essential requirement."
Luc Montagnier: "It is necessary."
Robert Gallo: "You have to purify."
Marcel Tanner: "If a pure SARS-CoV-2 isolate cannot be documented by the IVI [=Institute of Virology and Immunology] in Bern, then we have a problem." (see here).
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi: "... You have to clean the virus from all this mess."
Jean-Claude Chermann: "Yes, of course.... Absolutely."
David Gordon: "It's a natural step from obtaining the virus in cell culture to then obtaining a purified virus."
Dominic Dwyer: "Purification, as far as you can go, is important for analysing viruses or bacteria, for that matter."
Wan Beom Park: "In the outbreak situation, isolation of the causative virus is essential for the development and evaluation of diagnostic tools, therapeutics and vaccine candidates."
Since isolation in the true sense never worked for suspected pathogenic viruses - because viruses were only an idea from the beginning and therefore there was nothing to isolate - virologists in the 1950s (since John F. Enders' speculation) [1] switched to a new procedure, which from then on was simply equated with isolation and which is still used today.
Tissue is grown in the laboratory and then inoculated with supposedly "infected" material in the form of, for example, saliva or blood from a diseased person. If the tissue culture subsequently dies and shows a certain phenomenon shortly before or during death, which is called the cytopathic effect (CPE), virologists assume the presence of a virus. [2] This assumption is then confirmed - as with almost everything done in virology these days - with the help of a PCR test.
In fact, however, the tissue culture is prepared and "stressed" in such a way before the supposed "infection" that this circumstance alone already leads to its death. Therefore, in order to be allowed to ascribe any scientific significance to the appearance of a cytopathic effect and the death of the tissue, special control experiments would have to be carried out to prove that it is not the procedure itself that is responsible for the result in the test tube, but really only a certain, decisive factor in the form of "infected" material. However, these control experiments have never been carried out until recently (with a few exceptions that confirmed that this effect occurs even without supposedly infected material), [14] even though many papers (just as in the case of isolation) claim that they have very much been realised.
Why is the killing of tissues/cells in the test tube called "isolation"?
It is called isolation because, on the one hand, it is believed that the tissue would be completely transformed into viruses by the infection - the tissue dies and only the viruses remain - and, on the other hand, because a supposedly decisive factor has been brought into the laboratory from the outside in the form of the infected material with which the tissue grown is inoculated.
So the whole thing has nothing whatsoever to do with actual isolation, and yet this procedure is literally officially recognised in virology as virus proof and as isolation. Therefore, "fact checkers", TV experts and also some well-known scientists from the critic scene argue that there very well would have been an isolation.
Virologists use the term: "isolation in cell cultures".
In this process, a mixture of RNA from a human and/or a monkey, a bacterium or a cow is produced with admixtures of foreign and harmful substances.
You can see some of the substances in the table.
As well as serum-free media are the source of cow RNA (Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS).
See: "Extracellular small non-coding RNA contaminants in fetal bovine serum and serum-free media".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6445286/ [3]
Under such conditions, the basic rules of molecular biology and experimental biochemistry are violated.
After "isolation in cell cultures", virologists proceed to the sequencing of nucleic acid
from: Humans and/or cows, monkeys, bacteria, harmful and foreign substances.
You will notice that virologists never speak of extracting RNA directly from a "virus", but of a supposed "viral lysate", "viral isolate", "primary isolate", cell culture supernatant or a sample without cell cultures (swab, balf). And this is what the above-mentioned mixture of RNA is all about!
Below you will find the shortest refutation of the claim that a virus has been isolated in the sense of "isolate" for 10 publications.
Isolated 10 times ? 10 times smeared ;)
1. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID‐19 in Australia [4]
“We extracted RNA for whole genome sequencing of the viral isolate. Briefly, RNA was extracted from clarified cell culture supernatant and randomly amplified cDNA prepared by sequence‐independent single‐primer amplification (SISPA).”
2. Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19 [5]
“Using reverse transcriptase, cDNA was synthesized from RNA extracted from the cultured cell medium in which the virus was replicated. “
3. First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India [6]
“Next-generation sequencing was performed on SARS-CoV-2 positive clinical samples (100 μl) included in the study and the tissue culture fluid (50 μl) of virus isolates at PID-3 as described earlier”
4. Isolation and characterization of SARS CoV-2 from the first US COVID-19 patient [7]
"When CPE were observed, the cell monolayers were scrapped with the back of a pipette tip. Fifty μl of the viral lysate were used for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. Fifty μl of virus lysate was used to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate."
5. Serological and molecular findings during SARS-CoV-2 infection: the first case study in Finland, January to February 2020 [8]
“Nearly the complete coding region of SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank accession number: MT020781) was sequenced from the NPS [nasopharyngeal swab] collected on Day 4 (Table) and the complete coding region was sequenced from the virus isolate obtained after three passages in Vero E6 cells.”
6. Molecular characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the first case of COVID-19 in Italy [9]
“Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on the respiratory samples from patient 1 and on the primary isolate, prior to any further passage, by using the Ion Torrent S5 platform (Thermofisher). “
7. Complete Genome Sequence of a SARS CoV-2 Strain Isolated in Northern Germany [10]
“For sequencing of the viral RNA, nucleic acid extraction was performed automatically using the QIAsymphony DSP virus/pathogen kit and 200 μl cell culture supernatant.”
8. Isolation and phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants collected in Russia during the COVID-19 outbreak [11]
“A total of 100 μL of infected cell culture suspension was used for RNA extraction using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen).”
9. Isolation and characterization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in Turkey [12]
“Viral RNA was isolated from 140 μl of the infected culture supernatant using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.”
10. Genome Sequence of SARS-CoV-2 Isolate Cali-01, from Colombia, Obtained Using Oxford Nanopore MinION Sequencing [13]
“The sample was collected in viral transport medium (VTM) following WHO protocols (3) and submitted to the Virology Laboratory of the Universidad del Valle for molecular diagnostics.”