Let's get to the root: There is no proof of SARS-CoV-2

To the freedom-fighting virus pushers: If we don't start addressing the root of the lie, we will be playing this game forever

First, I would like to start with this— appeals to authority are not scientific evidence. Because “insert expert says so” is not evidence. Logical fallacies do not take the place of scientific evidence that strictly adheres to the scientific method. I don’t care about your credentials— evidence that adheres to the scientific method is what matters.

When I ask for *one* paper in which a virus was isolated, purified, characterized, and sequenced directly from the fluids of sick host and not as a result of a cell culture, understand I’m asking for foundational evidence for the existence of a virus.

Virologists presuppose that there is a virus present in the fluids that are presented to the cell culture (alongside DMEM, fetal bovine serum, amphotericin B/gentamicin, etc.), and assume that the virus in the snot is causing the cell to experience the cytopathic effect.

They have never established that a virus is present inside the fluids of a sick host, first, and second, have never taken said virus from the fluids and presented it to a healthy host to see if it causes disease.

Every electron micrograph image of what virologists refer to as a virus is a result of a cell culture experiment.

When asked to provide one single paper that shows a virus isolated, purified, characterized and sequenced directly from the fluids of a sick host (which they cannot provide), virologists, immunologists, etc. respond with some of the following answers:

1. “The virus is too weak to isolate/purify directly from the fluids.” 

Okay… but also you say a virus is able to travel freely through the air, survive on a surface for hours, make it into the body, make it to a cell and break in, hijack the cell’s machinery and begin replicating?

2. “You’re not a virologist, you don’t get to determine what isolation is.” 

Okay, but why can’t you provide one piece of foundational evidence to validate your claim that a virus is present in the fluids of a sick host and is the cause of disease?

3. “A virus needs a host in order to replicate, so that’s why we use the cell culture.” 

But it *is* in the fluids of a sick person, right? So why can’t it be taken directly from fluids? And how do you know for certain the other cell culture ingredients aren’t causing the CPE? Further, how do you know that a “virus needs a host to replicate” if you’ve never isolated, purified, characterized, and sequenced one directly from the fluids of a sick host? How do you know how one behaves in nature if you haven’t even found it in nature? And what is the human body if not a giant cell culture?

4. “There’s not enough virus present in the fluids to isolated/purify it.” 

Excuse me— what? I thought we were talking about a pathogenic disease causing agent that overwhelms the body and produces high “viral loads” in really sick people. Not enough present in the fluids? How many people would it take for there to be “enough virus” present? How can you assign attributes to something you haven’t first shown to exist in nature (in the fluids of a sick host)?

Pseudoscience is anything that doesn’t follow the scientific method but claims to be scientific. Virology has never validated the foundational claim of a pathogenic virus existing inside the fluids of a sick host and has never done control experiments. Virology is pseudoscience.

If you hypothesize “X exists and causes Y”, then you need to show that X exists and directly observe X causing Y.

You can’t say “if X exists, then Y. Y, therefore X exists” if you have never shown that X exists, and seen it causing Y. An affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

The claim is: “a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.” The natural and logical response to that claim is “please provide proof that a pathogenic virus exists in the fluids of a sick host.” That’s what we’re asking for. It is simple, and this evidence has *never* been shown. 

Additionally, if everyone in the world understood the implications of this, this whole charade would be over:

Stefan Lanka, a virologist, has conducted the first ever *proper* control experiments of both virology’s vero cell culture virus isolation experiments and the so-called genomic sequencing of SARS-COV-2— the foundational evidence for all of COVID19. 

First, for context, I will explain the procedure used by all virologists to “isolate” a virus. 

If you read the methodology of any “SARS-COV-2 virus isolation paper”, you will find that the procedure is as follows:

Minimally filtered snot from a sick host is added to a vero cell culture (monkey kidney cell) alongside cytotoxic antibiotics like gentamicin/amphotericin (usually at 3x normal concentration). They also add “minimal nutrient medium,” which is the minimal amounts of nutrients— DMEM (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium) and fetal bovine serum— to keep the cell alive. They also sometimes add trypsin. The cell breaks down into a bunch of fragments— called the cytopathic effect. They then stain and heat the fragments to prepare them for electron microscopy, take pictures of them and call them “viruses.”  

In phase 1 of Stefan’s control experiment, he followed the exact same procedure except that he did not introduce a sample from a sick host (which virologists presuppose contains the virus, but never validate) to the culture, but used all of the other same ingredients. The exact same cytopathic effect happened, thus proving that the foundational evidence used by virologists to claim the existence of a pathogenic virus is pure pseudoscience.

In phase 2 of the control experiment, Stefan used all of the same ingredients as in the control (antibiotics, minimal nutrient medium, etc.), except that he added yeast to take the place of the snot that supposedly contains the virus and the supposed virus RNA that is uploaded into a computer program to generate a so-called “viral genome.” As Dr. Cowan describes in his recent book, Breaking the Spell, “the reason for adding the yeast RNA is because of the way that the genome of a ‘virus’ is found, a computerized process called ‘alignment.’ The alignment process starts with fragments of RNA and constructs a theoretical genome—one that never exists at any point in the actual sample. This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces into an entire ‘genome.’ It is for this reason that every complete genome of SARS-CoV-2 is referred to as an ‘in-silico’ genome, meaning a genome that exists only in the computer. As long as you have enough of these RNA fragments and provide the template, the computer can recreate any genome.”

Stefan was able to recreate 100% of the so-called SARS-CoV-2 genome without any clinical sample from a sick person present, but rather a random sample of yeast. 

Could there be a pathogenic disease causing virus? Absolutely. There could also be unicorns. There could also be gnomes. They’ve also never been shown to exist, however. The difference is, no one is making bold claims for gnomes and unicorns and trying to restructure all of society based on the claims and subsequent lack of proof. When you make bold claims, substantial evidence is required— especially if you’re to flip the entire world upside down over said claims. With viruses, we lack evidence and we’ve flipped the entire world upside down. Has the existence of a pathogenic disease causing virus been scientifically established? No. The evidence is severely lacking at best and completely pseudoscientific and fraudulent at worst, and if we don’t get to the root now, we will be playing this game forever. There will always be the threat of a new variant, a new so-called bio-weapon that leaked from a lab, and masks, shots, social distancing will always be on the table until we stop appealing to words of experts and start addressing clear inconsistencies in both logic and scientific evidence for the entire field of virology.