“The central question raised in this study is the following: is there reliable evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?
The study provides documentation based on Freedom of Information requests addressed to Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.
The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation/ purification undertaken by the numerous Health /Science institutions which were contacted.
It is worth noting that according to the Berlin Virology Institute, the WHO in January 2020 did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation and identity of SARS-CoV-2.
Moreover, because the relevant details concerning isolation /purification were not available, the WHO decided pursuant to the advice of the Berlin Virology Institute to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) using the “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2.
Bear in mind, this totally flawed RT-PCR test is being used not only to detect V-the virus, it is now being used to ‘detect” the variants of SARS-CoV-2.
Supporting documents including the responses by Health /Science institutions, CDC, etc are provided in this study. Also more documents can be consulted by downloading the relevant pdf files compiled by the researchers.”
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 4, 2021, January 6, 2022
Read the article here :
by Jon Rappoport, December 18, 2020
First of all, very high praise goes to Christine Massey, for her work in exposing the coronavirus fraud. In a half-sane world, she would have received many awards by now.
Her latest communication reads: “Freedom of Information reveals Public Health Agency of Canada has no record of ‘SARS-COV-2’ isolation performed by anyone, anywhere, ever” 
I urge readers to visit Massey’s site and read her new article and follow all the links. Her findings are stunning. She and her team have made about 40 FOI requests to public health agencies in various countries, requesting proof that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. You’ll see from the responses that not one agency has records demonstrating isolation.
This means exactly what it seems to mean: the virus has not been proven to exist.
As for the people who keep chanting that the virus has been isolated, I can keep explaining why this is not so. I can do this forever.  
Whether it’s a scientist, a gaggle of scientists, a government official, a person waving a study around like a newspaper with a hot headline from an old movie, my response is the same, and I make it knowing that some people will intentionally refuse to understand it:
ONE: SAYING the virus has been isolated is not the same thing as proving it’s been isolated.
TWO: Researchers routinely twist the meaning of the word “isolated” to mean its very opposite.
Isolation is absurdly taken to mean: “We have the virus in a soup in a dish in the lab. It is not separated out (isolated) from the soup. The soup contains various cells—human, monkey—and an array of (toxic) chemicals and drugs. We know the virus is there, because it is infecting and killing some of the cells.”
A reasonably bright junior high school student would immediately realize this is not a description of isolation.
A reasonably bright high school student would point out that there is no proof the virus is infecting and killing cells, because the toxic chemicals and drugs in the soup are sufficient to do the cell-killing. He might also mention the cells in the soup are being starved of nutrients, and this alone could cause their death.
Therefore, there is no evidence that “the virus” is actually in the soup.
Therefore, there is no evidence in this situation for claiming the virus exists at all.Continue reading “SARS-CoV-2 has not been proven to exist; I can do this forever”
translated by Corona Investigative, October 29, 2020
The question is whether the Chinese publication “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019” (1) is a perfect proof of the existence of the virus. The study shows that the Chinese (Prof. Zhang) calculated the genome of SARS-CoV-2 within 40 hours of receiving BALF. This process is called alignment. In this article this process is explained in more detail.
What is the alignment in virology and what have Chinese scientists done in the first two major publications on the new claimed SARS CoV-2 virus
The alignment, the easily recognizable and essential refutation of all virus assumptionsContinue reading “The claimed SARS-CoV-2 virus is only an alignment, a computer model”
Tests for COVID-19 aim to detect the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, or an immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear.
The indications for conducting a COVID-19 test have changed through the course of the pandemic. See the current suspect case definition (link is external) and the testing criteria (link is external) on the Department of Health website.
The three main types of SARS-CoV-2 tests are:
- Nucleic acid detection tests – to detect SARS-CoV-2 viral (Ribonucleic acid) RNA;
- Rapid antigen tests – to detect antigen viral proteins from the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and
- Serology tests – to detect IgM and/or IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
At yet another Coronavirus Press Conference with the Danish Health Minister and key officials.
A citizen journalist Kristofer Krarup had decided to sneak in, tired of only noncritical questions being asked by the lame mainstream media.
Armed with negative answers from the health authorities on access to document requests regarding isolation and purification of the virus [SARS-CoV-2] and its existence… let the show begin…
To date, no virus isolate in the sense of the Kochs postulates of SARS CoV-2, the corona virus, has been presented by science. Samuel Eckert confronts with these facts Prof. Marcel Tanner who is a Swiss epidemiologist, malaria researcher and public health specialist. He is President of the R. Geigy Foundation, President of the Swiss Academies of Arts and SciencesDirector emeritus of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH).
Public Health England did not have the information requested.
Andrew Johnson Delivered
Dear Public Health England,
I would like to see:
All records in the possession, custody or control of Public Health England describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells).
Please note that I am using “isolation” in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where “isolation of SARS-COV-2” refers *instead* to:
• the culturing of something, or
• the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or
• the sequencing of something.
Please also note that my request is not limited to records that were authored by the PHE or that pertain to work done by the PHE. My request includes any sort of record, for example (but not limited to) any published peer-reviewed study that the PHE has downloaded or printed.
Please provide enough information about each record so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, where the public may access it).”
Background: The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable while there is growing evidence that the outbreak is more widespread than initially thought, and international spread through travellers does already occur.
Aim: We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.
Methods: Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.
Results: The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV. Through coordination between academic and public laboratories, we confirmed assay exclusivity based on 297 original clinical specimens containing a full spectrum of human respiratory viruses. Control material is made available through European Virus Archive – Global (EVAg), a European Union infrastructure project.
Conclusion: The present study demonstrates the enormous response capacity achieved through coordination of academic and public laboratories in national and European research networks.
Keywords: 2019-nCoV; RT-PCR; Wuhan; diagnostics; laboratory; novel coronavirus; outbreak; testing.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest: None declared.