Has the “Virus” Been Isolated? No.

“I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” It’s a reasonable approach if you are careful about which experts you trust.” -Steve Kirsch

Trust the Experts?

Throughout this Testing Pandemic, we have been hit with repeated mantras such as “Trust the Science” or statements such as “I only listen to the experts.” People have given authority to those in white coats to tell them what is truth and what is misinformation. As a society, we have been groomed to believe that the “doctor knows best” and that the “science is settled.” However, is this reliance on so-called “experts” really a reasonable approach, or is it just an excuse to not do any research and to let others do the thinking?

I was recently made aware of this blog post by Steve Kirsch titled Has the virus been isolated? Yes. I do not know Steve nor have I ever read his blog before. This is not meant as an attack on the man. I will, however, point out the flaws with his reasoning as well as the lack of logic in his approach. Steve has made a positive claim about the existence of “SARS-COV-2” yet immediately threw the onus on to experts he trusts to make the case for him rather than researching and understanding the situation for himself. Let’s break down some of the claims in the article and see if they hold up.

All of the expert friends I’ve asked (including Robert Malone and Li-Meng Yan) tell me that “the virus has been isolated.” So it has been “isolated” according to their belief in what the term means.

Others interpret the term differently and would claim the virus hasn’t been isolated. In fact, according to their definition, no virus in history has ever been isolated. That’s important to know. They use that as justification for their belief that there is no virus here since viruses don’t exist at all.

Both sides are right because they define the term differently. It’s all semantics.

Kirsch’s expert friends claim that “SARS-COV-2” has been isolated according to their belief in what the term means. That’s quite the statement. Are we to take it that if one believes isolation means something other than what the commonly accepted definition is (i.e. separating something from everything else), then their belief in a different meaning or interpretation of the word is evidence enough to state the isolation of a “virus” as a fact?

Definitions Matter.

This is the crux of the argument and it is no trivial thing. Definitions matter. Meanings matter. One does not get to change the long-held meaning of a word in order to prove their belief as if it is a fact. What people fail to realize is that when virologists (and Steve’s friends) discuss isolation, they have entirely changed the meaning of the word itself. Here is a brief explanation by virologist Vincent Racaniello:

“Let’s start with the term virus isolate, because it’s the easiest to define. An isolate is the name for a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and propagated in culture. The first isolates of SARS-CoV-2 were obtained from patients with pnemonia in Wuhan in late 2019. A small amount of fluid was inserted into their lungs, withdrawn, and placed on cells in culture. The virus in the fluid reproduced in the cells and voila, we had the first isolates of the virus.

Virus isolate is a very basic term that implies nothing except that the virus was isolated from an infected host. An isolate comes from a single host.”


As can be seen, isolation to virologists does not mean obtaining the particles assumed to be “viruses” free from everything else. It means taking a sample from a person and subjecting it to the cell culture process. What they do not tell you is that the sample from the human contains many different particles, microbes, bacteria, and organisms within it. These “non-viral” host materials are never separated out by the accepted purification methods such as ultracentrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc. Sometimes they may spin the sample a bit and claim separation of bigger particles such as bacteria, yet many smaller particles, such as microvesicular bodies and exosomes, will remain.

The non-purified sample is always immediately subjected to some form of “viral” transport media containing antibiotics, antifungals, fetal cow blood, “nutrients,” etc. which is then added to a culture containing either animal or cancer cells. In the case of “SARS-COV-2,” Vero cells coming from the kidneys of African Green Monkeys were used. Thus, the cell culture process is the exact opposite of isolation. It is the addition of many foreign elements mixed together with the host sample which is subjected to numerous cell-altering processes such as the further use of many of the chemicals and cow blood already listed. I detailed the cell culture process here. No particles assumed to be “viruses” are ever purified (i.e. free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign elements) nor isolated (i.e. separated from everything else) at any point in time.

All of this is to say that, unlike what Steve said, both sides are not right as virologists have completely debased the meaning of the word isolated in order to have their “proof” be taken seriously. The only side correct here is the side that understands the actual meaning of the word.

Can You Buy A “Virus?”

You can physically buy the virus in various forms (at ATCC and EVAg). If you have a BSL3 lab and a live virus, you can expose it to animals and they will get sick.

No, one can not physically buy a “virus.” What one can buy is the cell cultured soup described above. No “virus” particles are ever purified/isolated and sold. Cell cultured goo is sold and a “virus” is assumed to be within the product.

Isolation by Addition or Subtraction?

If you watch this video at 4:00, you’ll see even virologists themselves don’t agree on the definition of “isolate.” Does it require purification or not? If we don’t agree on the terminology, there is no end to the arguments. And that’s exactly what we see on the chat.

That us why debating Kaufman and his collaborators is fruitless: each side will dig in on their own definitions and settle nothing. 

Here we see the erroneous idea that both sides have a valid claim to what the word isolate means. There are only the accepted definitions of the word. According to Merriam-Webster, these are the essential meanings of the term isolation and isolate:


1the state of being in a place or situation that is separate from others: the condition of being isolated

2the act of separating something from other thingsthe act of isolating something



1: to set apart from others

2to select from among others especiallyto separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state


There is no definition where isolation/isolate means to take something and mix it together with many other things. If virologists are going to create new definition for words, they must show why these new meanings are valid. According to the scientific method, the definition of isolation used by virologists would be completely invalid as without separating the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a human first without subjecting the sample to anything else, there is no valid independent variable with which to test cause and effect. Without a valid independent variable of purified/isolated particles, how would virologists know:

  1. That the particles assumed to be “viruses” after culturing were ever in humans to begin with?
  2. That the additives in the cell culture soup are not the actual cause of illness rather than the assumed “virus?”
  3. That the particles photographed from millions of similar/identical particles are in fact the “virus” they were seeking and not exosomes or MVB’s?
  4. That the RNA used to create the genome aquired from the cell culture soup is from one source rather than the many unknown ones in their cultured soup?

The answer to all of these is that they can not know unless they first purify/isolate the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from humans. This is the only way. No “virus” paper has ever done this. In fact, they claim it is impossible:

“Viruses are basically inanimate objects which need a culture to activate in. But the way they are phrasing the requests is that the sample must be completely unadulterated and not be grown in any culture – and you can’t do that,” she told AAP FactCheck in a phone interview.

You can’t isolate a virus without using a cell culture, so by using their definition it hasn’t been isolated. But it has been isolated and cultivated using a cell culture multiple times all around the world.”

‘Proof’ the virus behind COVID-19 doesn’t exist fails basic biology test

Even the CDC stated as such in a response to the amazing work of Christine Massey:

You can find this and over 150 FOI responses claiming no records of purified/isolated “viruses” here:

FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (159 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever

By the commonly understood meaning of the word isolation, the isolation of a “virus” has never been done.

Do Genomes Prove Isolation?

Someone asked:

The real question is … has it been isolated from a HUMAN subject w/o passing it through (say) Monkey Kidney Cells? Because there is plenty of evidence out there that says it hasn’t been isolated directly (no intermediaries) from a HUMAN subject.

I know that Sabine Hazan verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus. Do these isolates have other stuff in them? How were they created? I don’t know because I haven’t analyzed them personally. But my scientist friends seem happy with them. At $2,000 a shot, I don’t think they’d market the product if it was contaminated and useless. Am I wrong?

Once again, Steve relies on others to claim isolation for him, this time through genomic sequencing. However, this is a ridiculous statement as without first purifying and isolating the particles assumed to be “viruses,” there can be no claim that the computer-algorithm created sequence was generated from one source. It is admitted by the WHO that there will be “non-viral” material in the sample from the host and other sources:

Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2

“Depletion of host or other non-SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in a sample leads to a higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in generated sequence data and therefore a higher chance of recovering a full genome. SARS-CoV-2 metagenomic approaches therefore typically include steps to remove host and bacterial cells, through either centrifugation or filtration prior to RNA extraction, or chemical or enzymatic removal of unwanted DNA/RNA. This is easier for liquid samples, from which cells can be more easily separated, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (Table
4). Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and DNA content are also commonly depleted during library preparation for virus RNA sequencing, and carrier RNA is often omitted from extractions or replaced with linear polyacrylamide. Despite such measures, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced. Metagenomic approaches therefore generally benefit from input of samples with high virus loads (such that a reasonable proportion of the genetic material in the sample is virus).”

Metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, non-virus reads. It is also often (though not always, depending on the sequencing platform and multiplexing) more costly than targeted capture-based or amplicon-based sequencing approaches, because more data have to be produced to generate one SARS-CoV-2 genome. Moreover, pretreatment steps that are particularly beneficial for metagenomics, such as centrifugation, are not typically performed for molecular diagnostic assays so new extractions that incorporate pretreatment steps may have to be performed for metagenomic sequencing.”


The “SARS-COV-2” genome came from unpurified broncoalveloar fluid from one patient. I detailed this process here. There are many sources of “non-viral” RNA within the sample. The reference sequences of previous “coronaviruses” that were used to create the “SARS-COV-2” genome were also created from unpurified non-isolated samples subjected to many additives/substances as described here. There can be no verification of the “SARS-COV-2” genome as the actual isolated particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” (or any other “virus” for that matter) do not physically exist in order to get an accurate genome from.

Has “SARS-COV-2” Ever Been Properly Purified/Isolated Directly From Sick Humans?

The answer is a clear NO. The only way these so-called experts can attempt to make this isolation claim is by completely changing the meaning of the word. Why must the meaning of isolation be changed in order to “prove” a “virus” exists? Where and when did this definition change occur and what evidence was used in order to justify the complete reversal?

This is the problem with relying on experts to do the thinking for you. When the claims of the experts are broken down, the same faulty logic and lack of critical thinking shines through. Their inability to look at the information objectively with unbiased eyes becomes your inability to do the same. Their false assumptions and outlandish claims become yours to defend.

One does not need to be an “expert” in order to research, read, and think critically and logically to make an informed opinion. Far too often, we have given up our own ability to think for ourselves. We have decided we are unworthy to discover truth and that it must be determined for us by those in (false) positions of authority. Do not fall into this trap. Do not just listen to the “experts” or “trust the science.” Do not just read one blog post and consider it a day. Do your own research and uncover the truth for yourself. Become your own guide and believe in yourself enough to be your own expert.

Trust in yourself to discern truth.



  1. Yes indeed, the emperor has no clothes. I want everyone in the world to make a cup of tea or coffee, get comfortable, and carefully read this post. I want to send this to everyone I hear saying, “Oh yes, the virus has been isolated.” Nope. Thanks Mike!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks! In this case, the emperor is definitely butt-ass naked and hysterically running through the streets shouting insanity at the top of his lungs. I’m hoping the louder the insanity gets, the more people will pay attention and see that the naked idiot in the street clearly needs to be locked up.


  2. I know everyone is on their own journey. But it’s amazing to me that Kirsch is so much about data when it comes to checking the effectiveness (and lack thereof) of the covid injections, yet when it comes to the actual existence of the virus, he just relies on his friends. And this laziness or lack of diligence is seen in one point of his dismissal of Kaufman. Kirsch doesn’t deal with the arguments but only focuses on “expertise” (argument from authority) and ignores methodology.

    And that’s the significant difference between Kirsch and yourself, between him and Lanka, Cowan and Kaufman. Kirsch only mentions methodology and the basics and carries on relying on the argument from authority. [Some may say “argument from authority” is ok if the person is an expert in the field. But reliance solely on the person without evidence is still weak as a proof (and possibly still fallacious).] Whereas you focus on the actual papers and the methodology, making it accessible and understandable to the point where it can be whittled down to “mixing something is not isolation.”

    So it’s a poor showing from Kirsch, and you have an abundance of evidence, some of which you quote, that reliance solely on people without sufficient evidence only shows faith but it not sufficient evidence in and of itself.

    To summarise: great article, again!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks! I read it as a lazy post on his part. Instead of researching and understanding, he deferred to the opinions of others and shared links to articles attempting to character assassinate Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Cowan, and Dr. Lanka. Just on the Lanka case alone, it is clear he has no knowledge. His argument that Dr. Kaufman is just a psychologist boils down to a ad hominem attack and does not refute anything Dr. Kaufman has stated.

      Kirsch wrote an article making a positive claim on something he admitted he knows nothing about and then tried to play it off as a disagreement on semantics. I had no knowledge of Kirsch before nor have I ever read his work but if that is the kind of lazy writing/research he does, it makes me question whether I would ever want to read any more from him.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I find that argument about “semantics” to be poor. Semantics means “the meaning of words.” If there is an argument about what words mean, then it is very important. If isolation means the opposite of mixing, then it is crucial when virologists claim to be isolating something when they are mixing it!!! It’s a terrible argument.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. The semantics argument drives me crazy and it is a weak one. If virologists are going to change the definition of a word (which should not be allowed IMO), they must show valid proof/evidence for why this change must occur. They have never done this beyond circular arguments stating “this is how isolation must be done” or “isolation means different things to different virologists.” Those are excuses, not answers.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. hesedyahu,
      “But it’s amazing to me that Kirsch is so much about data when it comes to checking the effectiveness (and lack thereof) of the covid injections, yet when it comes to the actual existence of the virus, he just relies on his friends.”
      The very same approach by Jeremy Hammond. He is usually logical with his arguments and provides evidence but like Kirsch, when it comes to the question of isolation he says that cell culture method is how virologist ‘isolate’ a virus [paraphrase]. Also like Kirsch they just link to said articles as proof.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Excellent again Mike – thank you!

    I would like to add one thing in response to the mention of Stefan Lanka’s measles trial in Steve’s blog; the internet articles and fact checkers love to point out that Lanka only won on a technicality due to Bardens presenting 6 papers instead of the required one, deducing that Lanka is therefore wrong about the measles virus not existing. But offering 6 papers doesn’t add more weight, it only multiplies the margin for error.

    As an analogy, imagine six planes waiting on the tarmac for a safety check before getting clearance to take off. Let’s assume there’s a safety process checklist which is essential to be ticked off for every plane before getting the all clear. Then imagine the safety assurance officer claiming that whilst they haven’t ticked off all the items on the checklist for every plane, all the items have been ticked off collectively. Obviously this wouldn’t constitute a safety clearance for all six planes. One checklist for one plane. One paper for each separate claim of isolation.

    FYI if you haven’t read it already, there’s a good blog on this trial from someone who claims to have been there, where they have an exchange with a knowledgable student who claims the measles virus has been isolated… https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for the kind words and the great example! Yes, Feli’s breakdown is so amazing I felt like leaving Kirsch’s Lanka comments alone as there really is nothing I can add to refute them any further. I decided to keep my focus on his fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of isolation. Feli and others have explained the Lanka situation perfectly! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Zero knowledge is imparted by defining “isolating”, “isolation”, “isolate” (noun or verb), “isolated” in terms of each other. As does Vincent Racaniello, “An isolate is the name for a virus that we have isolated”. There are more excerpts on experts’ musings on isolation in Brent Leung’s, “The House of Numbers” documentary. Beginning at 4:26.

    The most problematic is Robin Weiss at 6:36.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. According to Weiss, purification and isolation are just “imprecise virology jargon” which “mean different things to different people.” Therein lies the problem. 😉

      Thanks for sharing! I forgot about those quotes. I need to rewatch that documentary. It is brilliant!


  5. Thanks so much for this argument Mike. It is the first example of your work that I have stumbled across. I definitely indent to check out more.
    Seems to me that those folks like Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Steven Hatfill, etc. who have stepped forward to publicly criticize the vaccine (often to great effect) are very careful to never do anything that discredits the notions of virus or virology. It’s almost as if they have been pushed forward to placate the skeptics while keeping the extremely useful concept of an extremely powerful yet invisible killer that can take on any desired traits very much real and alive (to the extent that a virus can be considered to be alive, that is).
    Are they constructing a limited hangout? A technique of clandestine groups whereby some truths are offered up in order to withhold key and damaging facts. We find the proffered information about vaccines so intriguing that we forget to pursue more sinister aspects of the Covid drama.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are welcome! I’m not overly familiar with Steve other than that one post of his. Malone, McCullough, Rogan, etc. stink of CO to me. If Steve Kirsch is friends with these people, it would be safe to question him as well. His attacks on Dr.’s Kaufman, Lanka, and Cowan were very cheap ad hominem attacks that did not address the issue of isolation. Rather, he tried to character assassinate them instead and pretend both sides have a legitimate claim to what isolation means. Obviously, I wasn’t a fan of what he wrote. I normally don’t respond by attempting to refute other people’s posts but a few people asked me to write up something and his argument rubbed me the wrong way, so I obliged. 😉


      1. Nice article! Spot on with your observation on Malone, McCullough, Rogan etc. Unfortunately, even virus debunkers like Kaufmann and Cowan are part of the CO. They form the next layer of deception in this drama. One only has to look at the people they often hang out with—typical NEW AGE buggers who hide sinister agendas behind their spiritual facades.


      2. Thanks, I appreciate it! I’m less convinced that Dr.’s Kaufman and Cowan are CO although I maintain a healthy skepticism of everyone. I understand what you are referring to in regards to associations but I try to focus more on the messages they are sharing. So far, I haven’t seen anything from either Dr. that leads me to believe they are being deceptive or intentionally leading people away from the truth. However, if they were to say anything to perpetuate the “virus” lie, I will be first in line to call them out.


  6. There appears to be a disease. The disease appears to be transmissible. Therefore a particle must be transferred from one to another. There is a test which tests for a transmissible particle. The test appears to detect disease. Therefore the test correctly tests for the cause of the disease.


    1. You are assuming quite a bit. First, the disease is nothing but a collection of the exact same symptoms of disease we have always seen. There are no new or specific symptoms related to “Covid.” The fact that people are sick with disease does not mean a particle is being transmitted person-to-person. You are assuming this yet there is zero proof that this is the case. The “SARS-COV-2” particles in question have never been purified/isolated which is what this post was about. You may believe these particles exist but it is not a belief based on scientific evidence.

      The PCR test looks for small fragments (not the whole) of RNA said to belong to this non-existent “virus.” The genome these sequences came from is a computer-algorithm creation from unpurified BALF from one patient. PCR is faulty, inaccurate, and was never meant as a diagnostic test. Anyone can test positive if they run the test long enough. Water has even tested positive on both the Drosten and CDC PCR tests. It is printed in the EUA that these tests can not say if what is detected is infectious nor that it is the cause of a person’s symptoms.

      Keep in mind, appearances can be deceiving. Look at the evidence for yourself. You will see that every statement you made is nothing but assumptions based on appearance, not scientific evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. While you may believe what you just said none of it matters because we have a thing called the scientific method.

      The scientific method is the best way to try and understand the world around us.

      When people claim to be scientists but they do not use the scientific method, one should ask themselves WHY.


    1. Thanks, I really appreciate the kind words and support! I may be open to discuss this in the future but currently I am very busy getting my old posts from FB updated and onto my site as quickly as possible before FB deletes them. I’m spending the majority of my free time on this. Maybe in a few months I will have them all on here and I will feel able to slow down and interview but at the moment, getting this work out there ASAP has been my primary focus. I appreciate the interest and I hope that this information has been beneficial. 🙂


    1. Yes I saw both. Mercola basically rehashed Kirsch’s blog post without adding anything new besides using Hammond’s idiotic claims to back himself up. All Mercola accomplished was proving that he is controlled opposition. Massey’s response was excellent!


    2. Also Jeremy Hammond has responded (via his Newsletter)
      Title: Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated
      A sample quote “I published an article back in December 2020 debunking the false claim that the CDC “admits” that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated and explaining that it has been isolated and whole genome sequenced many times by scientists all over the world. I’ve also covered this topic numerous times in various newsletters and several interviews.”
      Please see more in the relevant Newsletter.
      My assessment of Jeremy is above.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Of course he responded. Hammond’s ego won’t allow him to admit he is completely wrong. He has repeatedly shown that he can not comprehend basic logic nor definitions.


      1. Mike, I just read the response that Christine did and have to agree with you!
        Yourself, Christine, Lanka et al are saying out loud that the emperor is indeed naked! It seem to be more lucrative in being a critic with “well defined limits
        “. Oppose the safety of vaccines and authoritarian measures of the last 2 years – that is ok. However do not dare point to the true crux of the Covid mythology.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, they (controlled opposition) offer limited truth while attempting to keep people still believing the lie. They are very limited about what they can reveal. They are the Pied Pipers attempting to lead those moving away from the lie back on to an accepted course that still aligns with it.


  7. Mr. Stone, EXCELLENT compilation site filled with more truths than we have ever seen with respect to infectious disease and viruses, especially. THANK YOU for all the time and arduous effort you have invested to simply share the truths we deserve. Congratulations and Blessings to you, sir!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you so much for the very kind words and support! When I started writing these posts, I tried to think about what kind of site I would like to have had when I first started researching and understanding the mess that is virology. My hope was that this site would make some of the more difficult concepts easier to understand as well as be a place where people can come to in order to find the important studies and information relating to them. The evidence virologists have given us is free for all to see but it can be confusing, time-consuming, and difficult to track it all down. My hope is to make things more simple so that easy access to this information can help bring this house of cards down.


  8. What on earth is this utter bollix? I have isolated it myself, so whoever wrote this has no idea what they are talking about.


    1. You’ve purified and isolated “SARS-COV-2” directly from the fluids of sick patients without cell culturing it first nor subjecting the sample to “Viral” transport media? These purified/isolated particles were then proven pathogenic in a natural way (i.e. aerosol)? You also EM imaged these purified/isolated particles and biochemically characterized them? If so, please share this evidence.


      1. Yes. I have. And yes. They were. And yes, they have been characterised in those ways.
        The paper is not published yet, but as it will not be in the “Beano” you are unlikely to understand it.


      2. You’ll have to forgive me but I’m not just going to take your word for it. Please provide the paper/evidence. I assure you I will understand it just fine.


  9. I’m sorry, maybe I should have been more specific and said human “viruses,” not bacteriophages. Why are you sharing a technique from over a decade ago instead of the research you claimed to do yourself?

    This site is not a business so I have no business model.


    1. I told you. It is not published yet.
      And Bacteriophages ARE viruses. Or did you not even know that? I can point you in the direction of some Ladybird books of Science if that would help you? Although you might struggle even with those considering the nonsense you have written above.
      If they were isolating viruses like that over a decade ago, don’t you think huge leaps in the technology have been made since then?
      And you must be paid something to write the amount of absolute bollix that you do. Or else you are severely mentally ill.


      1. Do bacteriophages infect humans? No? Didn’t think so. I am not concerned about bacteria. I am discussing so-called pathogenic human “viruses.” If you can not supply your own research, for which I am just supposed to take on good faith apparently, please provide evidence where a human “virus” was purified and isolated without culturing, proven pathogenic in a natural way, EM photographed, and characterized. Surely you are not the only one to do this? Unlike you, others must have published their findings.


  10. More people are starting to get it.


    “ In this episode of ICIC, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and medical journalist Hans Tolzin explore the history virology, the studies upon which modern science relies, and
    the alleged “evidence” supporting the existence of invisible and dangerous viruses.

    Hans Tolzin details the medical historical background of virology starting with the first trials and publications by scientists at the beginning of the 20th century. He reveals serious gaps in field research and points out that there are numerous significant insufficiencies that have never (officially) been pursued or corrected, such as the gross neglect of differential diagnosis.

    It is not only the virus theory that gives rise to major criticism. The apparent lack of care and ignorance in professional circles is also worrying. For it is on these assumptions that organizations and institutions are based which are responsible for the health of the world’s population, which propagate medicines, therapies and vaccinations, and which people blindly trust and believe.

    After these findings, valid questions arise: Is there really a so-called “isolate” of a virus, especially a “corona” virus or do the available images show something completely different, and if so what? Why is no attention paid to this question and why are discrepancies in the definition of terms tolerated in science?
    Mr. Tolzin speaks not of an “isolate”, but rather, of a “high purification” in order to obtain indisputable proof of a “virus”. His findings raise further, controversial questions and have the potential to shed light on the shady history of virology.”


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: