In 1968, a group of eight virologists sent word to Nature that they had all discovered similar (i.e. the same) particles from tissue and organ cultures in humans which resembled those in chickens and mice. The researchers relied on negative staining in electron microscopes and used several indirect methods such as complement fixation, neutralization tests, hemadsorption, etc. in order to detect these “viruses.” They claimed that these particles, despite some polymorphism (i.e. two or more clearly different types exist in the same population of the same species; more than one form or morph) all had a characteristic fringe of projections which they felt resembled a solar corona, hence the name “Corona-virus.” Below is the announcement as it appeared in Nature in 1968:
VIROLOGY
Coronaviruses
A NEW group of viruses with the name of coronaviruses has been recognized by an informal group of virologists who have sent their conclusions to Nature. (They are J. D. Almeida; D. M. Berry; C. H. Cunningham; D. Hamre; M. S. Hofstad; L. Mallucci; K. McIntosh; D. A. J. Tyrrell.)
They point out that with negative staining, avian infectious bronchitis virus has a characteristic electron microscopic appearance resembling, but distinct from, that of myxoviruses. Particles are more or less rounded in profile; although there is a certain amount of polymorphism, there is also a characteristic “fringe” of projections 200 A long, which are rounded or petal shaped, rather than sharp or pointed, as in the myxoviruses. This appearance, recalling the solar corona, is shared by mouse hepatitis virus and several viruses recently recovered from man, namely strain B814, 229E and several others. These viruses also share a number of other properties as indicated in the table. (Anyone interested in the data on which the table is based may obtain a short bibliography on application to Dr D. A. J. Tyrrell at the Common Cold Research Unit, Salisbury, Wiltshire.)
Some other relevant properties should bc mentioned. There is an antigenic relationship between the human and murine strains, but none has been detected between avian strains and the others. A haemagglutinin has been detected by certain workers using avian infectious bronchitis virus and also antigens separable from the virus particle, but these have so far not been recorded for the human or murine strains.
In the opinion of the eight virologists these viruses are members of a previously unrecognized group which they suggest should be called the coronaviruses, to recall the characteristic appearance by which these viruses are identified in the electron microscope.
These suggestions have been received by members of the Myxovirus Study Group (chairman, Professor A. P. Waterson) under the International Committee for the Nomenclature of Viruses (ICNV). Thc suggestions were found acceptable and are now to be considered by the Vertebrate Virus Committee of the ICNV.
Almeida JD, Berry DM, Cunningham CH, Hamre D, Hofstad MS, Mallucci L, McIntosh K, Tyrrell DAJ. Virology: Coronaviruses. Nature 1968; 220(5168): 650.
doi: 10.1038/220650b0
The main proof for the existence of “coronaviruses” stems from the work of four of the virologists listed above:. D.A. Tyrrell, Dorothy Hamre, June Almeida, and Kenneth McIntosh. It is important to remember that in order for these virologists to claim that a new “virus” exists, they must first have a valid independent variable for their experiments. This is the variable that they will change or manipulate during the experiments in order to show it has a direct effect on the dependent variable. The only valid independent variable would be purified (i.e. free of contaminants, pollution, foreign materials) and isolated (i.e separated from everything else) particles assumed to be a “virus” taken directly from a sick host. Once they have these purified/isolsted particles that are all the same morphological size and shape, they can then attempt to prove the effect (i.e. pathogenicity) in a natural way in human or animal models. Only with purified/isolated particles would these researchers be able to show that the particles that they captured in the electron microscope (EM) images are the ones that are causing disease. The virologists would then be able to describe, characterize, and eventually classify these particles as a new “virus” or family of “viruses.”
The problem, however, lies in the fact that not one of these researchers ever purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from sick patients and subsequently proved them pathogenic in a natural way. They all subjected their samples to unnatural tissue and/or organ cultures first and mixed them with various additives such as fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, and growth medium. This toxic culture stew, which is the exact opposite of purification and isolation, was injected unnaturally into animals and humans, sometimes through the nose and skin but most often (in the case of the animals) through intracranial (in the brain) injections. If these toxic injections caused symptoms, such as a watery or runny nose in the intranasal injections or encephalitis in those that were intracranial injections, they would claim that a “virus” was in the mixture.
The evidence that these virologists eventually submitted in their Nature article for a new “virus” family rested on the fact that their particles looked the same as the avian infectious bronchitis “virus” in negatively stained EM images, as noted by June Almeida who had seen identical particles in the past in chickens. However, as she admitted her images came from crude unpurified cultures, there is no possible way she would have been able to claim those particles were the ones causing illness as they were never purified/isolated and came from samples containing potentially millions of similar and/or identical particles. All Almeida did was search through a sea of particles and found the one that looked familiar to her and then picked that particle as the representation of their new “virus.”
While the EM images are hardly convincing evidence (if we can even call it that), this was not all that these virologists relied on to sell the scientific community and the public on this newly emerging “virus” family. They also presented various ndirect serological test results to claim that these tissue/organ culture stews had new yet related “viruses.” Disregarding for the moment that, like “viruses,” antibodies have also never been purified/isolated and are an entirely theoretical concept yet to be scientifically proven, any results stemming from these serological tests would be absolutely meaningless without first purifying and isolating the particles believed to be “viruses.” Without this essential step, there would be no way to validate and calibrate the tests in order to determine their sensitivity and specificity. This is exactly why the antibody tests used for “SARS-COV-2” today are considered unreliable and can not guarantee immunity. However, this did not stop these virologists from relying on these inaccurate test results to make unfounded claims in order to sell their story.
Interestingly, a few years after this Nature announcement, a study came out which claimed that the relationship of these “viruses” to the IVB particles that they were said to resemble did not exist. It also questioned the usefulness of the serological results. A few excerpts:
Antigenic Relationships amongst Coronaviruses
“Several serological interrelationships between various members of the coronavirus group have been revealed in neutralization, complement fixation, and gel- diffusion tests, using human and hyperimmune animal sera. Several members of this group of human and animal pathogens are shown to cross-react in one or more type of test, but one member, avian infectious bronchitis virus, was shown to be unrelated. Mouse hepatitis virus (MHVs) was found to be antigenieally related to a number of human types of coronavirus. Difficulties were encountered in the investigation of paired human sera in demonstrating the specificity of antibody rises, placing doubt on the values of some serological studies. The significance of these interrelationships is discussed in the light of other investigations.”
“These studies have demonstrated that viruses which were grouped together
as “coronaviruses” because they were morphologically similar show several serological similarities as well. A summary of the cross-reactions detected in these studies is shown in Table 6. The cross-reactions found have not revealed common or group antigens as are found with the influenza viruses, but rather haphazard inter-relationships like those found between the different parainfluenza viruses, mumps and Newcastle disease virus. As might be expected, the less specific serological tests of immuno-diffusion and complement fixation produced more evidence of cross-reaction than did neutralization and HI tests.
Some of these results confirm other studies on antigenic relationships amongst coronaviruses (MCINTOSH et al., 1969; KAYE and DOWDLE, 1969) particularly in that avian infectious bronchitis virus does not seem to be related to the others by any of the tests used.
The viruses tested here showed some anomalies in their neutralization by antisera. Neutralization of a virus may involve several immunological reactions and not enough is known about the neutralization of coronaviruses.”
“The complement fixation and haemagglutination-inhibition results suggest that MHV possesses several antigens which it shares with one or other of the human strains. This work shows that the 229E and LP viruses are closely related but distinguishable serologically and that they cross-react with MHV; also 0C43 antisera can neutralize 229E. This does not support the suggestion by MCINTOSH et al. (1969) that 229E-like viruses form one uniform group serologically, and that the 0C43–38 group are a more heterogeneous collection, being serologically distinct from 229E and characterized by their cross-reactions with MHV strains.
The use of human sera in coronavirus serology has been shown to be of only limited value in differentiating between infections of the various human coronaviruses because of the heterologous rises which can be found in these sera. A specific antibody response probably only occurs on the first exposure to a member of the coronavirus group, and there is evidence that this response is poor, and may be boosted by later immunological stimulation.“
“Studies on the antigenic structure of the coronaviruses are continuing so that the antigens responsible for these cross-reactions may be isolated.”
doi: 10.1007/BF01253769
From the above study, it was shown that the IBV “virus” that the other “coronaviruses” resembled was unrelated to them. Even the eight virologists in the Nature article admitted that IVB was antigenically unrelated to all of the other strains. However, to date, it is still classified as an avian “coronavirus.”
The authors also presented conflicting results over the antigenic differences between the first two human “coronaviruses:” 229E and OC43. According to the NIH’s Kenneth McIntosh, the man responsible for “isolating” OC43, both 229E and OC43 are serologically separate strains of “coronaviruses.” However, the authors of this study found that 229E and LP “viruses” cross-reacted with MHV and that 0C43 antisera neutralized 229E. Due to these results, they claimed that 229E and OC43 were not serologically distinct entities. However, to date, 229E is classified as a alpha “coronavirus” while OC43 is a beta “coronavirus,” meaning that these “viruses” are separated as two serologically distinct entities. This is a great example of the various conflicting results that regularly happen in virology which are glossed over and/or ignored in favor of those that support a certain narrative. In this case, the NIH won.
It was also admitted in this paper that there was difficulty in producing a specific antibody rise in human sera which raised doubts about the value of these types of test results. The use of human sera was of only limited value in determining the type of “coronavirus” infection due to heterologous rises (having a different relation, relative position, or structure; not homologous). It was said that a poor specific antibody response probably only occurs after first infection.
The cross-reactions that occurred between these “viruses” were mainly due to results from the less specific immuno-diffusion and complement fixation tests. The neutralization and HI tests did not produce such results. In fact, there were anomalies with the neutralization tests which caused the authors to admit that neutralization may involve multiple processes (i.e. its mechanisms were unknown making the results useless) and that not enough information was known about the neutralization of “coronaviruses.” Thus, any complement fixation and neutralization test result should be cast in doubt yet both tests were relied upon heavily by the Nature “coronavirus” virologists to make the case that they had, in fact, “isolated” a new family of “viruses.”
It should be clear that these serologic results are rather meaningless yet if it wasn’t, the authors offered one final nail in the serological coffin: studies were ongoing in order to find the antigens responsible for the cross-reactions so that they could be isolated. In other words, these researchers did not have isolated antigens in order to explain the cross-reactions. Why is this important? Let’s see what the definition of an antigen is:
“Any substance that causes the body to make an immune response against that substance. Antigens include toxins, chemicals, bacteria, viruses, or other substances that come from outside the body.”
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/antigen
The researchers claimed that the isolation of the antigen, i.e. the “virus,” had not taken place in order to determine how these cross-reactions occurred. These serologic tests amount to nothing but non-specific chemical reactions that have no value whatsoever. They most certainly can not constitute proof of any “virus” nor as evidence for the presumed relationships between them.
Where In The World Is B814?
Another glaring issue with the classification of these identical particles as “viruses” belonging to a new family is the mysterious disappearance of B814. It was said to be the first human strain and was “isolated” by D.A. Tyrrell in the early 1960’s. It could only be “grown” in organ cultures from aborted fetuses unlike 229E which was “grown” in tissue culture and OC43, which was adapted to cell culture after originally being “isolated” in fetal organ cultures. It was supposedly able to produce colds in volunteers and was said to be seen under negative staining in EM by June Almeida. Studies were carried out by various researchers until it up and disappeared in the early 70’s.
Here is a brief history lesson on B814 from the blog of Leonard Norkin, a retired professor emeritus of Microbiology at the University of Massachusetts, a virology teacher, and an author on the history of virology:
June Almeida and the Discovery of the First Human Coronavirus-Part II: Where Does B814 Fit in the Coronavirus Family?
“Even though B814 is recognized as the first known human coronavirus, listings of coronaviruses that infect humans, as compiled in medical virology books and in the journal literature, generally include only seven coronaviruses, none of which has been shown to be identical to B814. These seven coronaviruses include four human coronaviruses that cause common colds (HCoVs 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKUI), and three animal coronaviruses that recently emerged in, and are highly virulent in humans (SARS, MERS, and SARS-CoV2). Where then does B814 fit in this compilation of coronaviruses? In search of an answer, here is a brief history of the discoveries of the human coronaviruses.
In 1966, at about the same time that Almeida was carrying out her electron microscopy analysis of B814, Dorothy Hamre and John Procknow, at the University of Chicago, recovered 5 viral isolates from medical students with colds (2). One of these isolates, 229E, was examined by Almeida, who found its morphology to be identical to that of B814. Then, in 1967, Robert Chanock and coworkers at the NIH used the organ culture technique to isolate yet other strains, including OC43, whose morphology likewise resembled that of B814 (3).”
“229E and OC43 were virtually the only HCoVs being studied during the next thirty years, mainly because they were the easiest of the HCoV strains to work with. As for B814, it could only be grown in organ culture (1). In contrast, clinical samples of 229E could be grown directly in cell culture. And while OC43 was originally grown in organ culture, it was subsequently adapted to growth in suckling mouse brain, and then to growth in cell culture.
Both 229E and OC43 are clinically significant, as each caused multiple epidemics in the United States, at intervals of 2 to 3 years. Moreover, reinfection with each of these strains was common (4); a point that may be relevant to the current COVID-19 pandemic. In any case, in 1970 it was reported that B814 is not serologically identical to either OC43 or 229E (5). Little else seems to be known about B814.”
It seems as though B814, having been difficult to grow in fetal organ cultures, was pushed to the side and forgotten about in favor of the much easier to grow 229E and OC43. Apparently, this discontinuation in the study of the first ever human “coronavirus” led to the “virus” giving up and leaving the planet for good without so much as leaving a note telling us where it went. Even the Department of Health and Social Care as well as the NIHR in the UK had no clue as to the whereabouts of B814 (or apparently even 229E) as was admitted in an FOI request resonse to Daniel Hadfield in October of 2020:
How does the original human strain of a “virus” go missing? Why does a “virus” disappear if the researchers stop investigating it? What does the disappearance of the original “coronavirus” strain say about the remaining strains? What would have happened had researchers stopped investigating 229E or OC43? The answers to these questions should be obvious. The “virus” only exists in the minds of the creators. Without research and propaganda driving the narrative, B814 was allowed to fade into the sunset, never to “infect” another living soul and its very existence remaining unbeknownst to the vast majority.
The Evidence?
In every single origin paper for the strains of the “coronaviruses,” the researchers went into their experiments presuming a “virus” and searching for particles which looked identical to “known viruses” such as avian infectious bronchitis “virus” (IBV) and murine hepatitis “virus” (MHV). Not a single one of the original studies used to claim the emergence of this new “coronavirus” family offered direct proof for the existence of a “virus:”
D.A Tyrrell’s B814:
D.A. Tyrrell’s “Coronavirus” Discovery Paper (1965)
D.A. Tyrrell’s 2nd “Coronavirus” Discovery Paper (1966)
Dorothy Hamre’s 229E:
Hamre’s “Coronavirus” 229E Paper (1966)
June Almeida’s “Coronavirus” Images:
June Almeida And The First “Coronavirus” EM Images (1967)
Kenneth McIntosh’s OC43:
McIntosh “Coronavirus” OC43 Preliminary Paper (1967)
McIntosh “Coronavirus” OC43 Discovery Paper (1967)
The origin and classification for the “coronavirus” family boiled down to picking a representative particle from an unpurified sea of identical ones and claiming that this particle is actually many different related entities based on inaccurate, indirect antibody results. It is because of the interpretations of these mad science experiments from four main virologists that we are currently dealing with “coronaviruses” now. They created three separate strains of the same “virus” from the same representative particles (B814 in 1965, 229E in 1966, and OC43 in 1967) yet only two (229E, OC43) stood the test of time and were considered the main human “coronaviruses” for the next couple of decades. B814, the first human strain identified, just up and disappeared without any explanation whatsoever. It wasn’t until the dawn of molecular biology and 30+ years of apparent hibernation that the “coronavirus” decided to re-emerge to terrorize the world with several “new” and “deadlier” human strains.
The origins of the “coronavirus” family was built upon inaccurate serological results and the flimsiest of EM evidence. Understanding this fact, it is easier to see the “coronavirus” scam for what it truly is: a house of cards ready and waiting to tumble.
ViroLIEgy 
1 comment