CDC admits coronavirus never isolated

[Firestarter]

I’ve seen some stories by “conspiracy theorists” claiming that the COVID-19 virus has never been isolated. Unfortunately all of these stories were too complex and/or long.
Wouldn’t you know it? A document published on 13 July 2020 (4 months after the “pandemic” had already been started) the almighty Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Viral Diseases (CDC) explicitly confirms no “virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available”:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…

You have to scroll down all the way to page 39, to the section “Performance Characteristics” if you think my image isn’t good enough.
As no COVID-19 virus has ever been isolated, all the coronavirus tests are complete and utter BS, because they don’t even know what they’re looking for.

You could compare this to a “positive” DNA-test or fingerprint, where no DNA or fingerprint was available, so instead they compared it to “something” generated by a computer simulation: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10 ... available/

[Firestarter]

There used to be genuine “scientific” criteria to determine whether a virus causes a disease – it must meet the 4 scientific criteria of Koch’s postulates.
Because of new and improved detection methods, Koch’s postulates should be handled stricter, but instead big pharma replaced these postulates with pseudoscience, so they can invent (causes of) diseases out of thin air.

See the 4 scientific criteria of Koch’s postulates – including isolating the “microorganism”:

1) The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms;
2) The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture;
3) The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism;
4) The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_postulates

[Firestarter]

It looks like the almighty CDC contradicts itself, because on 5 May 2020 it claimed:

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.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... lture.html

Here’s the CDC’s article on isolating the virus. From June 2020 (that’s before admitting that COVID-19 had NOT been isolated).
One of many problem is that they claim to have used PCR to isolate the virus (which is impossible!):
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article


The following paper by David Crowe looks like it’s aimed at “professionals” – scientists and other quacks working in the medical field – but for most others it’s boring (and too long).
If you’re interested in:
No purified coronavirus was isolated and why this is important;
Why the PCR test shouldn’t be used like this.
This could be THE paper you want to read.

David Richard Crowe died on 12 July 2020 of “cancer”, aged 63 years.

As they haven’t been able to purify viral particles of COVID-19, every “positive” test is per definition - a false positive.

As there are no distinctive symptoms, a COVID-19 infection cannot be diagnosed in any other way either.

The COVID-19 test is based on PCR, which doesn’t produce a positive/negative result, but the number of cycles required to detect sufficient material to beat the arbitrary cut-off between positive and negative. Because of this the best the test could do is estimate the chance that the subject is infected, but I think it’s safe to say that the PCR test could only determine a non-infection (as it is excellent to find very small amounts).
There is no “scientific” certainty of what the cut-off number of cycles would be to produce a negative – some say as low as 30 others go as high as 45 cycles as the cut-off (to produce a negative test result – no infection).

Because the PCR test shouldn’t be used like this, repeatedly test result have gone from positive/negative/positive and back again in a couple of days.

David Crowe – Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory (Version 6 was first published on 12 March 2020; the latest is dated 6 June 2020, 5 weeks before his death): https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
(http://web.archive.org/web/202004041823 ... sPanic.pdf)


The following relatively long article has more information on the NOT isolation of the amazing COVID-19.
A virus should be isolated purified viruses, but all the 4 scientific papers that claimed to have “isolated” THE coronavirus, admitted that their pictures aren’t of purified, isolated viruses.

Co-author of “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” (March 2020), Malik Peiris, admitted:
“The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus”

Co-author of “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19” (February 2020), Myung-Guk Han, admitted:
“We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells”

Co-author of “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea” (24 February 2020), Wan Beom Park, admitted:
“We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification”

Co-author of “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China” (20 February 2020), Wenjie Tan, admitted:
“[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones”: https://www.globalresearch.ca/national- ... es/5720271
(https://archive.is/egYbP)

[Firestarter]

Here’s the CDC’s article on isolating the virus. From June 2020 (that’s before admitting that COVID-19 had NOT been isolated).
One of many problem is that they claim to have used PCR to isolate the virus (which is impossible!):
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

Dr. Tom Cowan has this to say on the CDC’s claim that the magical COVID-19 was isolated using PCR.
“To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn's hair, hooves and horn.
The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by "consensus," sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary "unicorn," so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn."


Cowan claims that the following is even more of a “blockbuster”. While obviously he’s right, I disagree that this is even more important.
Not having the virus isolated in the first places, makes all of the following “research” useless as they don’t know what they’re looking for…

Here’s the quote from the CDC’s scientific-looking paper…

Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells...
Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.

Cowan in short explains from the previous quote that the CDC here has proven that the (not) isolated COVID-19 doesn’t infect human cells in a test tube (so doesn’t infect humans!)…
“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible "hosts" or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.

The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this "new coronavirus" is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”: https://www.sott.net/article/443103-Onl ... oV-2-virus
(https://archive.is/QpyhS)

[Firestarter]

The following article reaches the conclusion - based on public statements by the CDC - that the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is roughly 0.14%: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/08/who ... -than-flu/

They forgot to take into account that according to the CDC, only 6% of all coronavirus deaths (in the US) were related to the coronavirus alone; on average there were 2.6 additional (possible) causes per death.
This means that a better estimate of the COVID-19 fatality rate, would be to multiply 0.14% with 0.06, leading to a fatality rate of 0.008%...

[jonesthepost]

The following article reaches the conclusion - based on public statements by the CDC - that the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is roughly 0.14%: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/08/who ... -than-flu/

They forgot to take into account that according to the CDC, only 6% of all coronavirus deaths (in the US) were related to the coronavirus alone; on average there were 2.6 additional (possible) causes per death.
This means that a better estimate of the COVID-19 fatality rate, would be to multiply 0.14% with 0.06, leading to a fatality rate of 0.008%...

Thanks for all the research you’ve been doing Firestarter; if only many more people ‘out there’ would do the same we could turn this around.

[Firestarter]

In 2008, none other than Anthony Fauci co-authored a paper on the Spanish Flu Epidemic that shows that most of the victims of the “Spanish Flu” in reality died from (secondary) bacterial pneumonia.
Of course wearing a mask could cause bacterial pneumonia – but hey these are 2020s, where “we” will all go down together!

The postmortem samples we examined from people who died of influenza during 1918–1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia.
(...)
The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory–tract bacteria.
(...)
The viruses that caused the 1957 and 1968 pandemics were descendants of the 1918 virus in which 3 (the 1957 virus) or 2 (the 1968 virus) new avian gene segments had been acquired by reassortment [21]. Although lower pathogenicity resulted in far fewer deaths, hence fewer autopsies, most 1957–1958 deaths were attributable to secondary bacterial pneumonia, as had been the case in 1918.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/

[Firestarter]

The following informative paper – only 12 pages – concludes that not only COVID-19 has never been isolated, but in fact a coronavirus has never been isolated at all!
They used small parts of this not-isolated “virus” (is it even a virus?) to detect “something” for evidence of a COVID-19 caused epidemic (pandemic) that in fact responds “positive” to many small fragments of the human genome or microbial fragments…

The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.
(...)

And the conclusions are extremely serious: none of the seven "human coronaviruses" have actually been isolated and all the sequences of the primers of their respective PCRs as well as those of a large number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human genome and in genomes of bacteria and archaea, such as these:
(...)

And that indicates that the sequence of that initial PCR primer that is supposed to be specific to SARS-CoV-2 actually corresponds to 74 fragments of the human genome and a hundred microbial fragments as well!

https://ia801504.us.archive.org/16/item ... 202020.pdf
(https://archive.is/ZaLwK)

[Firestarter]

How do we know for sure that the experimental DNA-altering corona vaccines do more harm than good?!?
Queen Elizabeth and the rest of the Royal degenerates or PM Boris Johnson can’t use their special powers to get poisoned with the COVID-19 vaccines before the “priorities” decided upon by the NHS.

The article doesn’t explain how the elite will refrain from letting themselves be injected with these vaccines (and probably refrain from all vaccinations).

The article does show that no efficacy (90% or anything else) has been proven in any trial. They only claim “antibody and T-cell response”.
In other words these trials haven’t even looked into a possible preventive effect (that’s besides that as no virus has ever been isolated, the claim of known “antibodies” is preposterous): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ccine.html

[Firestarter]

Surprise, surprise, Genevieve Briand of the infamous John Hopkins University admits that there are no excess deaths caused by COVID-19!
For some reason this article has already been deleted: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2 ... o-covid-19

Not surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. If COVID-19 would mainly affect the elderly, more people in older age groups should have died.
As the reported 50,000 to 70,000 total deaths was already “normal” before, COVID-19 has not increased the total number of deaths.
It’s obvious that the “high” number of coronavirus deaths are nothing but “misclassification”.

The reported number of COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This is impossible especially since the reported number of deaths due to heart disease significantly decreased.
Not surprising, this sudden decline in deaths is also observed for other causes. Interestingly, the total decrease in deaths by other causes is almost equal to the increase by COVID-19 deaths (the figure is difficult to read).

.

If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126163 ... o-covid-19