Fouchier “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003): Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled?

“It is obvious that Koch’s Postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.”

-Thomas Rivers 1937

During the 2003 SARS “epidemic,” the WHO regularly announced updates about their search for the causative agent of what was claimed to be a new disease. On March 27th, 2003, they admitted that the criteria that needed to be fulfilled in order to prove that there was a new “virus” causing a new disease was Koch’s Postulates: four logic based rules proposed by Robert Koch that have been the burden of proof since the late 1800’s:

“Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s postulate.” The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.”

-WHO 2003

Original link that seemingly no longer works:

https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_03_27b/en/

Archived link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210105005624/https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_03_27b/en/

On April 15th, 2003, the WHO stated that the experiments were done and that the criteria for satisfying Koch’s Postulates had been met, thus proving that the “new” disease “SARS” was caused by a new “coronavirus:”

Scientists Confirm Virus As Cause of SARS

“Scientists had been almost certain the new form of coronavirus first isolated from sick patients March 21 by the University of Hong Kong was the cause of SARS. But they could not say for sure until they had satisfied what is known as Koch’s postulates _ four scientific tests that verify whether a virus causes a certain disease.

“The Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled, so we can now say for certain that the new coronavirus is the cause of SARS,” said Dr. Klaus Stohr, a World Health Organization virologist who is coordinating the scientists’ work.

The first test requires that the virus be found in all the sick people, but not in healthy people. The second isolates the virus from a sick patient and shows that it multiplies in a lab dish.

The third step uses the virus from the petri dish to make a lab animal sick with the same disease as that seen in humans. The final step requires isolating the SARS virus from the sick lab animal and showing it can grow in a petri dish.”

“Experts said it is reasonable to imagine that the SARS virus came from animals, although its genetic code does not give any clear leads as to exactly where it came from. The genetic makeup is not very close to any of the known animal or human coronaviruses, they say.“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mrt.com/news/amp/Scientists-Confirm-Virus-As-Cause-of-SARS-7816916.php

From the above article written by the AP medical writer, we can see that the WHO set out to fulfill FOUR Koch’s Postulates. It is also said that this new “coronavirus” was genetically not close to any human or animal “coronavirus,” which raises the question, why did they believe “SARS-COV-1” was a “coronavirus” to begin with?

From a Genome Biology article, it is also claimed that the WHO set out to fulfill FOUR Koch’s Postulates, and it lays out the criteria. It also makes the claim that “SARS-COV-1” genetically is not close to any other “viruses,” and the genome sequence doesn’t tell them anything about its origin:

“The organization claimed that its collaborating laboratories have concluded the coronavirus meets all four of “Koch’s postulates” for a causative agent: it must be found in all cases of the disease, it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture, it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host, and it must be found in the experimental host so infected.”

“According to Gerberding, apart from providing more stringent diagnostic tests for the virus, and potential long-term goals for antivirals and vaccines, the new sequence is otherwise not very helpful in determining the origins of the virus. Unfortunately the clues from comparing it to the animal viruses have not given us any real leads… We can’t say it’s a mouse virus or a pig virus, or any other animal virus, necessarily, because it just isn’t similar enough to the known species to be able to draw those conclusions,” said Gerberding at a press conference.”

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-spotlight-20030417-01

The requirement to fulfill all FOUR of Koch’s Postulates is backed up by the statement from the WHO published on April 16th, 2003.

Interestingly, despite the claims by the WHO that all four of Koch’s Postulates must be satisfied, many people who defend virology continue to incorrectly claim that the postulates are outdated and that they do not apply to “viruses.” A “fact check” by Reuters from March of 2021 tried to make the case that the criteria were unnecessary:

Koch’s postulates do not need to be fulfilled to prove the existence of a virus

“Koch’s postulates were presented in 1890 (here and here), at a time when germ theory was still controversial and before the discovery of viruses, to which Koch’s postulates, as they were originally written, do not apply.”

“VERDICT False. Koch’s postulates, as they were originally understood, do not need to be demonstrated in order to establish that a microbe causes a disease. SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 and has been shown to do so by modern standards, including criteria modelled on Koch’s postulates, as well as genetic techniques that were not developed until decades after Koch’s death.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2L23F1/

However, it is clear that, not only did they ignore the statements from the WHO already presented, they ignored evidence from the CDC and other vitlrologists as well stating otherwise. The CDC’s own field manual published in 2018 titled Optimizing Epidemiology–Laboratory Collaborations stated that Koch’s Postulates form the basis of proof that an emerging agent is the etiological cause of a disease. Each of the postulates was considered necessary to satisfy as just finding an agent does not mean that it is the cause of disease.

Various virologists have also agreed with both the WHO and the CDC that Koch’s Postulates must be satisfied in order to claim a “virus” as a cause of disease. In 2012, Zaki et al. stated that Koch’s Postulates were important to determining if their “virus” was the causative agent of severe respiratory disease:

Epidemiologic investigations, active case findings with the use of updated case definitions, and syndrome surveillance in combination with sensitive diagnostic tests will be key to monitoring the present situation and — if necessary — to intervene in a potential outbreak. It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.

Zaki MERS “Coronavirus” Paper (2012)

This was echoed by researchers in 2020 when discussing the fact that “SARS-COV-2” had not fulfilled Koch’s Postulates. According to Zhou et al., the experiments to fulfill the postulates had not been carried out:

“However, there are still many urgent questions that remain to be answered. The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”

Zhou “SARS-COV-2” Paper (2020)

This same sentiment was reiterated by Zhu et al. who admitted that they had not fulfilled Koch’s Postulates and that these experiments remained to be completed:

“Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include identification of a 2019-nCoV antigen in the lung tissue of patients by immunohistochemical analysis, detection of IgM and IgG antiviral antibodies in the serum samples from a patient at two time points to demonstrate seroconversion, and animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”

Zhu “SARS-COV-2” Paper (2020)

In 2012, Ron Fouchier, the lead researcher for the 2003 “SARS” paper claiming fulfillment of Koch’s Postulates, reiterated that it was KOCH’S Postulates that were fulfilled for “SARS” while speaking about the need to once again fulfill them for MERS:

Ron Fouchier on the New Coronavirus: We Need to Fulfill Koch’s Postulates

“For starters, we’ll find out whether animals get sick from this virus. You can isolate a virus from a patient, but that does not mean they died from it; to show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates. That’s what we did for SARS, and it’s what we hope to do here; we’ve applied for emergency ethical approval.”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/ron-fouchier-new-coronavirus-we-need-fulfill-kochs-postulates

It is clear to see that, unlike what Reuters “fact check” claimed, according to the WHO, the CDC, and various virologists, all four of Koch’s Postulates need to be fulfilled in order to claim that a “virus” causes disease. The WHO and lead researcher Ron Fouchier specifically stated that the four postulates must be fulfilled and went so far as to say that they had been met. They stated that a newly identified “SARS-COV-1,” which was not genetically close to any other “coronavirus,” was the true cause of “SARS.” However, did the researchers really satisfy all FOUR of KOCH’S Postulates for “SARS” as claimed by those involved? Below is the full paper by Fouchier et al:

Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus

“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease¹. The first three criteria — isolation of virus from diseased hosts, cultivation in host cells, and proof of filterability — have been met for SCV by several groups^2,3,4,5. Moreover, of 96 individuals complying with the World Health Organization’s definition of SARS⁶ in Hong Kong, 86 (90%) yielded laboratory evidence of SCV infection.

We have tested for the three remaining criteria: production of comparable disease in the original host species or a related one, re-isolation of the virus, and detection of a specific immune response to the virus. We inoculated two macaques with Vero-cell-cultured SCV isolated from a fatal SARS case, and monitored their clinical signs, virus excretion and antibody response. The animals were killed six days post-inoculation (d.p.i.), and we then carried out gross and histopathological examinations of them.

Both SCV-inoculated macaques became lethargic from 3 d.p.i. onwards and developed a temporary skin rash, and one suffered respiratory distress from 4 d.p.i. onwards. The macaques excreted virus from the nose and throat at 2–6 d.p.i., as shown by polymerase chain reaction with reverse transcription (RT-PCR) and by virus isolation (see supplementary information). The isolated virus was identical to that inoculated, as shown by negative-contrast electron microscopy (Fig. 1a) and RT-PCR analysis. Seroconversion to SCV, as determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay using infected Vero cells, was demonstrated in two other SCV-infected macaques at 16 d.p.i.. The virus was also isolated from the faeces of one of these animals (see supplementary information).

At gross necropsy, one macaque had severe multifocal pulmonary consolidation, and SCV infection was detected in lung tissue by RT-PCR and virus isolation. Histologically, both macaques had interstitial pneumonia of differing severity. The one with gross lesions had diffuse alveolar damage, marked by necrosis of alveolar and bronchiolar epithelium and flooding of alveolar lumina with proteinaceous fluid, admixed with fibrin, erythrocytes, alveolar macrophages and neutrophils (Fig. 1b). Occasional multinucleated cells (syncytia) were present in the lumen of bronchioles and alveoli (Fig. 1c). These lesions are indistinguishable from those in biopsied lung tissue and in autopsy material from SARS patients⁵, including the presence of syncytia in alveolar lumina⁴.

SCV thus fulfils all of Koch’s postulates as the primary aetiological agent of SARS. This does not exclude the possibility that other pathogens, including human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and Chlamydia pneumoniae, may have exacerbated the disease in some SARS patients. However, these were not present in SCV-inoculated macaques (results not shown), were not found consistently in SARS patients, and do not usually cause the lesions associated with SARS. Moreover, lesions in macaques infected experimentally with hMPV isolated from a non-SARS individual⁷ were limited to mild suppurative rhinitis and minimal erosion in conducting airways, and disease was not exacerbated in two SCV-infected macaques subsequently inoculated with hMPV (results not shown).“

https://www.nature.com/articles/423240a

In Summary:

• Fouchier et al did not attempt to satisfy Koch’s Postulates but instead Rivers modified and watered-down version of them
• For a breakdown of the differences between Koch’s and Rivers Postulates, see this link:

Thomas Rivers Revision of Koch’s Postulates (1937)

• From the very first sentence, they invalidate their own fulfillment claim as Rivers 6 Postulates are admittedly different from Koch’s 4 Postulates
• They then state that the first 3 RIVERS criteria were met by other reseachers and referenced the four papers below:

PEIRIS:

J.S.M. Peiris “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)

DROSTEN:

Drosten “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)

POUTANEN:

Poutanen “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)

KSIAZEK:

Ksiazek “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)

• However, not a single one of these papers could meet the first requirement of Koch’s Postulates as they could not find their new “Coronavirus” in every case of the disease.
• None of the papers properly purified/isolated any “virus” directly from a sick patient but instead took samples and cultured them in foreign animal cells likely containing added fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, chemicals, nutrients, etc.
• Not a single paper gave detailed methods on how they cultured their “viruses” nor attempted to purify and separate the assumed “virus” particles by ultracentrifugation nor filtration even from their cell culture soup.
• Every one of the papers admitted to other potential pathogens isolated from “SARS” cases that could possibly be the causative agent for disease or act as a cofactor in disease progression
• Fouchier et al then state that they satisfied the last 3 RIVERS criteria themselves
• They used unpurified Vero cell culture supernatant and inoculated two macaques while only observing them for 6 days
• Only one of the macaques developed respiratory distress
• The two macaques had different levels of lung damage at autopsy with one severe and the other one not severe
• Both macaques were lethargic and developed a temporary skin rash, neither of which are symptoms of “SARS:”

Symptoms of SARS

“In general, SARS begins with a high fever (temperature greater than 100.4°F [>38.0°C]). Other symptoms may include headache, an overall feeling of discomfort, and body aches. Some people also have mild respiratory symptoms at the outset. About 10 percent to 20 percent of patients have diarrhea. After 2 to 7 days, SARS patients may develop a dry cough. Most patients develop pneumonia.“

https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-sars.html

There can be no claim by Fouchier et al. nor the WHO as to the fulfillment of Koch’s Postulates as the researchers did not even attempt to fulfill them. Instead, as stated in the very first sentence of the paper, Fouchier et al. attempted to satisfy Rivers’ criteria, which are admitted by Rivers himself to be different from Koch’s as:

1. He allows for the “virus” not to be found in every case of disease
2. He introduces the concept of “virus” carriers
3. He states that “viruses” do not need to be grown in culture

The WHO, Ron Fouchier, and the other researchers blatantly lied.

Sadly, but not shockingly, Fouchier et al. even failed at fulfilling Rivers’ watered-down version as they:

1. Did not isolate a “virus” from a diseased host
2. Did not cultivate a “virus” in host cells but instead used monkey kidney cells
3. Did not provide any proof of filterability
4. Did not produce the same disease in an animal host
5. Did not re-isolate a “virus” from the diseased animals
6. Did not prove that the immune response was specific

This paper and the disease associated with it are the shining examples of the fraud currently being perpetrated on us by virology today.

For further excellent insight into the ridiculous claims made in this paper, I highly recommend taking 30 minutes out of your day to watch Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s “The Rooster in the River of Rats” linked below: