I think it’s simple logic. It doesn’t require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field. The fact is that if there were evidence that HIV causes AIDS-if anyone who was in fact a specialist in that area could write a review of the literature, in which a number of scientific studies were cited that either singly or as a group could support the hypothesis that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS-somebody would have written it. There’s no paper, nor is there a review mentioning a number of papers that all taken together would support that statement. -Kary Mullishttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/ramullis.htm
One of the best pieces of advice I took from the late Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR technology currently being abused today, is that it is always important to go back and find the original source for any given claim. While the above quote is about HIV and AIDS, the logical reasoning can be applied to any “virus” past and present. What does the evidence show? If a claim is made, where and how was it established? What do the little numbers cited in each paper actually lead us to and tell us? If a novel “virus” is going to be built upon the back of the unrelated work of others over numerous decades, then those original studies should have the evidence neccessary to back up the claims made by current ones.
With the rise of “SARS-COV-2,” many claims were made about a novel “virus” and it’s supposed relation morphologically, serologically, and genetically to previous “coronaviruses” discovered over the past 60 years. While it would be easy to let these statements stand as is, when the very existence of the “virus” associated with our current “pandemic” hinges on the accuracy and validity of the work of previous researchers, these claims demand extra attention and research. In the case of the “coronaviruses,” this meant tracking down every original paper alleging the existence of any strain of this “virus” and scrutinizing the evidence presented. It also meant, in many cases, relying on the citations provided in these early papers in order to expand upon what was there and to elucidate the information that was missing.
Fortunately, when you read one “virus” paper, you have essentially read them all. Nearly every study can be broken down into the proceeding steps outlined below. Some papers will contain all of these steps while others may only utilize one or two of them but this is a general overview into the creation of a “coronavirus” (or any “virus” for that matter).
Step One: Take a sample directly from a patient and add it to transport medium without purifying any particles first.
After going through the original papers used as proof for the existence of “Coronaviruses,” it was obvious that not once during the 60 years of existence were any of these supposed “viruses”ever properly purified (i.e. made free of any contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials) nor isolated (i.e. separated from everything else) directly from samples taken from sick humans. The methods used for purification/isolation include ultracentrifugation, filtration, and precipitation. These steps are absolutely essential as if purification/isolation is not done, the particles assumed to be “viruses” will be in samples containing potentially millions of similar or identical ones. If these steps are ignored, there can be no independent variable (i.e. isolated particles assumed to be “viruses”) that can be used and manipulated in order to prove that the particles alone are the cause of disease. What one will find upon reading any of these papers is that the unpurified sample (which contains many microbes and particles other than assumed “virus”) is immediately placed in some form of “viral” transport medium containing various additives/chemicals, thus immediately defeating any claims of purification/isolation.
Step 2: Mix the unpurified sample into a culture containing added ingredients.
The sample is always added to a culture system, whether it is tissue, organ, or cell culture. The culture will contain many added compounds, chemicals, and ingredients such as fetal bovine serum, antibiotics/antifungals, and growth media made up of various “nutrients.” These cultured cocktails are incubated for days and often the added ingredients are discarded and replenished at regular intervals. The “viruses” are either passaged by taking the culture supernatant (the top layer) and adding it to fresh cells or, as done back in the old days, the supernatant is injected intracranially into animals (such as ferrets and/or mice) which will have their own brains emulsified into a new culture.
Step 3: Look for cell damage in order to claim a “virus” is present in the sample.
This toxic mixture of unpurified human and animal remains is where the claimed “virus” resides. It is never seen directly and only assumed to exist due to indirect cytopathogenic effects (CPE) noted in the culture. The CPE is cell damage that is said to be the result of the “virus” even though there are numerous other explanations for why this effect occurs such as contamination, the use of antibiotics/antifungals, or even as a direct result of passaging the culture itself. If this CPE is seen, the culture process is considered a success and it is assumed a “virus” has grown.
Step 4: Use the unpurified culture supernatant to take EM images in order to find a representative “viral” particle from among many similar ones.
This unpurified goo is often subjected to further alterations such as fixing, embedding, and staining in order to be visualized under the electron microscope. This process kills any “living” components and can create artificial artefacts which are often claimed to be “viruses.” Virologists will look through the goo to find particles which fit their preconceived notion of what their “viris” particle should look like and claim it as the culprit even though there are potentially millions of other similar or identical candidates within the unpurified cultured supernatant. In fact, it is admitted that there are various similar looking particles such as clathrin-coated vesicles, secretory vesicles and granules, exosomes, and other multivesicular bodies within these samples which are commonly mistaken for “coronaviruses.”
Step 5: Perform various indirect non-specific serological tests in order to claim the “virus” is new but related to other “viruses.”
Another indirect method utilized for claiming that these “viruses” exist within the culture supernatant include antibody testing. Serological tests such as complement fixation, haemagglutination inhibition, and neutralization tests are commonly performed. These supposedly “virus-specific” results are used to classify one strain over another as well as determine immunological information. However, there are a few problems with these methods. The first is that the tests are regularly non-specific and cross-react with other “viruses.” The results are regularly difficult to reproduce and replicate which has led to a reproducibility crisis. The second, and far bigger problem, is that like “viruses,” antibodies have never been purified/isolated directly from humans and are an entirely unproven theoretical concept with assigned functions that have never been observed. One can not use non-specific results indicating reactions of theoretical particles (antibodies) to identify the existence of other theoretical particles (“viruses”).
Step 6: Create a genome from the unpurified sample or culture supernatant and develop diagnostic tests based on these random fragments of A,C,T,G’s.
With the rise of genomics and molecular virology came another indirect method utilized as proof for the existence of “viruses:” the “viral” genome. Using various technologies like Sanger sequencing, next-generation sequencing, metagenomics, PCR reactions, computer algorithms, alignment software, reference genomes, etc., virologists have created a database full of random A,C,T,G’s said to represent these invisible particles. Diagnostic tests are then created to search for these computer-generated fragments. However, nearly every genome is taken from the unpurified cell culture supernatants which contain DNA/RNA from various known and unknown sources. If not taken from cell cultures, the RNA/DNA is taken directly from unpurified samples such as bronchoalveolar lavage fluid as in the creation of the “SARS-COV-2” genome. These genomes are then built on the backs of reference genomes which were created in the same way using unpurified sources. At no point in the chain of “coronaviruses” from the 1960’s to today has there ever been a genome taken from purified/isolated particles. Thus, there can be no certainty that any of the RNA claimed to belong to a “viral” genome is in fact “viral” as it could have come from numerous sources such as the host cell, the fetal bovine serum, exosomes or other MVB’s, contaminants, bacteria, etc.
The “Coronavirus” Papers
Presented below are all of the original human “coronavirus” papers for each strain given in chronological order. I broke down and summarized the papers and provided some extra history and/or method information where necessary. While I provided the full papers for the older “coronaviruses,” the newer papers are much longer so I highlighted the important sections. Every paper is linked within so my breakdown/commentary can be skipped if it is desired just to read the original studies for themselves. In the case of the older (and also for some newer) papers, the DOI # is the only way to access the full study. To do so, copy the DOI # at the end of each study breakdown, go to sci-hub.se, and then paste the DOI to search for and open or download the paper. I have given a brief overview on the creation of each strain here as well. You should be able to see the 6 steps outlined above and the general pattern used for the creation of the “coronaviruses.”
B814 is the original human strain of the “coronavirus” discovered by D.A. Tyrrell in the early 1960’s. Nasal washings were immediately stored in phosphate-buffered saline and bacteriological nutrient broth. The washings were then transferred into organ cultures of 14 to 22 week old fetuses mixed with Medium 199 and sodium bicarbonate. The medium was changed daily for two days and after about ten days, some were fixed in Bouin’s solution, embedded, sectioned, and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Haemagglutination-inhibition tests were performed to determine serological information for an unknown “virus.” Cold symptoms were only produced in volunteers given the nasal washings with the addition of demethylchlortetracycline. No EM images of purified particles accompanied the study. This initial version of the “coronavirus” mysteriously disappeared in the early 1970’s.
229E is considered the first human “coronavirus” even though the forgotten B814 was “discovered” a few years prior. This version was found by Dorothy Hamre after she took samples from 5 individuals (four who were unhealthy and one who was healthy) and subjected them to human kidney cultures. “Virus” could only be produced after the second blind passage. These “viruses” only produced CPE in human diploid cell strains taken from aborted fetuses and only these cultures, HEL or WI-38, were used for all further experiments. Non-specific complement fixation and neutralization tests were utilized to determine “specific” antibody responses for the unseen “virus.” No EM images accompanied Hamre’s initial paper. The 2012 genome for 229E was taken from an unpurified culture and built from the reference of a synthetic lab-created recombinant HCoV-229E cDNA clone (Inf-1) from 2001 that was based on the 1973-deposited laboratory-adapted prototype strain of HCoV-229E (VR-740).
Imaging the “Coronaviruses” (1967)
In this 1967 paper by June Almeida, which she co-authored with D.A. Tyrrell, Almeida claimed to use a new negative staining approach for her electron microscope images on unpurified samples in order to characterize the three uncharacterized “viruses.” She found particles in the unpurified culture supernatant that resembled influenza as well as Avian Infectious Bronchitis and Murine Hepatitis “Virus.” Her initial findings were rejected on peer review because the referees said the images she had produced were just bad pictures of influenza “virus” particles. Almeida’s images were eventually published as “coronaviruses” two years later even though skepticism remained.
The second official strain of the “coronavirus” is OC43 which was discovered by Kenneth McIntosh in 1967. This process was broken into two parts. His first paper tested nasopharyngeal wash fluid which was inoculated into each of two tubes of the following tissue cultures: HEp-2, primary human embryonic kidney, rhesus monkey kidney, and human diploid cell strains (HDCS) WI-26, WI-38, and AT-39. These cultures were observed for the customary CPE and any samples which did not display this effect were further studied using human embryonic tracheal organ cultures. Tracheas were obtained from fetuses spontaneously aborted at 5-9 months’ gestational age. The tissue was excised en bloc by sterile technique and immediately stored in cold Hanks’ balanced salt solution with 10% fetal calf serum, 250 u/ml penicillin, and 250 u/ml streptomycin. Tissue fragments were made which were were partially covered with 1.25 ml of Leibovitz medium, supplemented with 0.2% bovine albumin, 0.1 mM glutamine, 250 u/ml penicillin, and 250 u/ml streptomycin. Standard serologic tests were performed and EM images were obtained from unpurified culture supernatant.
In his second paper, McIntosh attempted to “adapt” his “virus” to suckling mice as he was unable to grow his “virus” using the standard tissue culture techniques. He chose suckling mice as he knew he could find the same particles in mice as those discovered by Almeida, Tyrrell, and Hamre since the murine hepatitis “virus” was morphologically identical. Suspensions used for mouse inoculation were prepared from material passaged four to five times in organ culture and contained “IBV-like virus” particles when examined by electron microscopy after tenfold concentration. Suckling mouse passages were performed either by combined intracranial (IC) and intraperitoneal (IP) inoculation or by the IC route alone. From these experiments, he determined that one mouse, designated OC43, contained the “virus” he was searching for.
It wasn’t until 2005 that a genome for OC43 came about from a prototype HCoV-OC43 strain (ATCC VR759) which was a laboratory strain that, since its “isolation” in 1967, had been passaged 7 times in human embryonic tracheal organ culture, followed by 15 passages in suckling mouse brain cells and an unknown number of passages in human rectal tumor HRT-18 cells and/or Vero cells. It was then further cultured in the human rhabdomyosarcoma (RD) cell line which is derived from the most common soft tissue sarcoma of childhood and adolescence. The RD cell line used for the OC43 genome came directly from biopsy specimens of a 7-year-old female with a pelvic RMS previously treated with cyclophosphamide and radiation and found to have refractory disease. It is grown in Eagle’s Medium with 10% fetal bovine serum. This unpurified concoction was used along with reference genomes primarily from bovine and murine “coronaviruses” in order to build the OC43 genome.
Naming the “Coronaviruses” (1968)
In 1968, eight virologists (including Tyrrell, Hamre, Almeida, and McIntosh) wrote the announcement of a new family of “viruses” in the journal Nature. They claimed that the particles they all recovered from tissue and organ cultures in humans were different strains of the same “virus” which just so happened to resembls those found 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.” The main strains identified in the announcement were B814, 229E, and OC43. Oddly enough, B814 would disappear forever less than a decade after its “discovery” while 229E and OC43 would go unchallenged as the only “coronaviruses” for over 30 years until the dawn of molecular virology and the creation of “SARS-COV-1” in 2003.
In 2003, the third human “coronavirus” was discovered by multiple researchers. Their papers will all be presented below. From the initial paper by Peiris, “viruses” were “isolated” on fetal rhesus kidney cells from the lung biopsy and nasopharyngeal aspirate of two patients. The initial cytopathic effect noted was the appearance of rounded refractile cells appearing 2–4 days after inoculation. The cytopathic effect did not progress in the initial culture tubes but on subsequent passage, and appeared in 24 h. Of 30 cloned RT-PCR samples from one of the patients, only one 646 bp fragment of unknown origin showing weak homology to “coronaviruses” was found and this was subsequently used to create RT-PCR assays for diagnosis. Of the 44 nasopharyngeal samples available from the 50 “SARS” patients, only 22 had evidence of human pneumonia-associated “coronavirus” RNA. Five patients had no virological evidence of “SARS” whatsoever yet they were still considered “SARS” cases. Other pathogens were found in some of the patients but these were relegated to possible secondary invaders. The usual serological tests and EM images were done on the unpurified samples.
In 2004, Lia Van Der Hoek created the fourth official “coronavirus” in NL63. To do so, she relied upon the use of her own unproven method called VIDISCA. Papers like this highlight the fatal flaws currently dominating virology which is the over reliance on molecular tests and data as proof of “virus” discovery. Van Der Hoek claimed her method can sequence the genome of an unknown “virus.” The problem is that this sequence did not come from purified/isolated particles. It came directly from unpurified monkey kidney cell culture supernatant that was mixed with the nasopharyngeal aspirate from a 7-month old baby. As described by Van Der Hoek, the clinical sample was subsequently inoculated onto human fetal lung fibroblasts, tertiary monkey kidney cells (Cynomolgus monkey) and HeLa cells. CPE was detected exclusively on tertiary monkey kidney cells, and was first noted 8 d after inoculation. More pronounced CPE was observed upon passage onto the monkey kidney cell line LLC-MK2 while additional subcultures on human fetal lung fibroblasts, rhabdomyosarcoma cells and Vero cells remained negative for CPE. The supernatant of the CPE-positive LLC-MK2 culture NL63 was then analyzed by VIDISCA in order to create the genome. No serological test results nor any EM images of particles said to be NL63 were presented in the study.
In 2005, Patrick Woo isolated what he claimed was the fifth new “coronavirus” from one 71-year-old patient. Isolation of the “virus” by using various cell lines, mixed neuron-glia culture, and intracerebral inoculation of suckling mice were all unsuccessful. Thus, the only evidence Woo could present was a genome stitched together from RT-PCR primers designed by multiple alignment of the nucleotide sequences of available pol genes of known “coronaviruses.” The RNA used came from unpurified nasopharyngeal aspirates, feces, and urine. The complete genome came from the unpurified NPA’s and the cDNA was amplified by degenerate primers designed by multiple alignment of the genomes of murine hepatitis “virus” (MHV), HCoV-OC43, bovine “coronavirus” (BCoV), rat sialodacryoadenitis “coronavirus” (SDAV), equine “coronavirus” NC99 (ECoV), and porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis “virus” (PHEV). Sequences were assembled and manually edited to produce a final sequence of the “viral” genome. Woo could not culture his “virus” nor show proof of pathogenicity even after intracranial inoculation in suckling mice. He had no specific antibodies and no evidence of transmissibility. There was no evidence for disease prevalence and he lacked a large sample size. No EM images of particles assumed to be NL63 exist.
In 2012, the sixth human “coronavirus” was discovered by Dr. Ali Mohamed Zaki in Saudi Arabia. Blood samples were taken from a 60-year-old Saudi man who was admitted to a private hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on June 13, 2012, with a 7-day history of fever, cough, expectoration, and shortness of breath. The samples were mixed with “viral” transport media and the supernatant was used to inoculate Vero and LLC-MK2 cells by adsorption for 1 hour at room temperature, after which 2% fetal bovine serum in minimal essential medium Eagle was added. A genome was created from the unpurified supernatant and aligned to reference genomes of previous “coronaviruses.” Non-specific IgG antibody results were obtained while IgM was not tested. Genomic analysis was used to create a relationship to other “coronaviruses.” No EM images of particles claimed to be MERS were presented.
At the tail end of 2019, the seventh (but definitely not final by the looks of things) “coronavirus” was created with “SARS-COV-2.” There were many papers used to claim the isolation of a novel “coronavirus” yet all of them failed at providing evidence of purification/isolation of any “virus.” In fact, four of the main papers (Zhu, Park, Kim, Poon) admitted to not purifying their “viruses” while both Zhou and Zhu admitted to not fulfilling Koch’s Postulates, four absolutely essential logical criteria needed to be fulfilled in order to claim a new pathogen exists.
According to the Zhou paper, the earliest of those published, five samples from sick patients were found to be PCR-positive for CoVs. One sample (WIV04), collected from the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), was analysed by metagenomics analysis using next-generation sequencing to identify potential aetiological agents. By de novo assembly and targeted PCR, they obtained a 29,891-base-pair CoV genome that shared 79.6% sequence identity to SARS-CoV-1. High genome coverage was obtained by remapping the total reads to this genome. By genomic analysis, they matched it to bat “coronavirus” RaTG13 with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%. They didn’t attempt “isolation” of a “virus” until after the genome was created from unpurified BALF. The isolation consisted of NP swabs which were mixed with 1.5 ml DMEM containing 2% FBS. The “viral” transport medium was composed of Hank’s balanced salt solution (pH 7.4) containing BSA (1%), amphotericin (15 μg ml-1), penicillin G (100 units ml-1) and streptomycin (50 μg ml-1). Vero E6 and Huh7 cells, which were cultured in DMEM containing 10% FBS, were used to culture the “virus.” The culture was subjected to many other chemicals and additives throughout the “isolation” process. No EM images accompanied the study even though they were mentioned as being done.
The Zhou paper and a few others are presented below. You will find similar procedures and unscientific results in all of the “SARS-COV-2” papers. However, you will not find purified/isolated particles taken directly from humans and subsequently proven pathogenic in a natural way.
Breaking the Chain
It is very clear that from B814 in 1965 to “SARS-COV-2” in 2019, not a single one of these “coronaviruses” was ever properly purified and isolated directly from a sick host and proven pathogenic in a natural way. This means that none of the EM images plastered in the media to generate fear should hold any power as the representative particles could be anything, including inert artificial creations derived from the very processes said to grow and image them. The supposedly specific antibody results should be ignored as without having purified/isolated the “virus” first, specific antibodies can not be determined. The “viral” genome should be thrown out as the RNA/DNA can and does come from numerous sources both known and unknown. The “viral” RNA has never been shown to come from any purified/isolated “virus” past or present. The PCR diagnosis should be seen for what it truly is, an absolutely inaccurate, easily manipulated, and meaningless measurement being abused to label a person with a “viral” sequence never proven to come from particles that exist in reality.
Every measurement used as proof for the existence of the “coronaviruses” stems from indirect evidence acquired through unscientific and grotesque experimentation with conclusions drawn that defy logic and reasoning. There never has been any direct evidence for the existence of this or any other “virus.” The history of the “coronavirus” is a flimsy yet carefully crafted narrative that falls apart upon critical examination. It’s time to lift the veil on this generational scam for everyone to see so that this cycle of madness can end once and for all.