<\/p>\n
by Jon Rappoport<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been exposing the fact that the CDC, in July of this year,\u00a0admitted, in a document<\/a>, that\u2026<\/p>\n They didn\u2019t have the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It wasn\u2019t \u201cavailable.\u201d<\/p>\n This means they couldn\u2019t obtain an isolated specimen of the virus. There is only one reason why.<\/p>\n The virus hasn\u2019t been isolated. And THAT means no one has proved it exists.<\/p>\n And now, I\u2019ve discovered ANOTHER key document. This one apparently formed the basis for the first PCR test aimed at detecting the COVID virus all over the world.<\/p>\n READ WHAT THIS STUDY SAYS. These quotes should be engraved in stone above the entrance to a museum dedicated to the history of medical fraud.<\/p>\n \u201cWe aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.\u201d<\/p>\n TRANSLATION: We want to develop a test to detect the new COVID virus without having the virus.<\/p>\n \u201cHere 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.\u201d<\/p>\n TRANSLATION: We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new COVID virus. We ASSUME this new virus is closely related to an older coronavirus. We ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because we don\u2019t have the new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are made out of nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new coronavirus.<\/p>\n \u201cThe workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV.\u201d<\/p>\n TRANSLATION: Our new test to detect the new virus? We don\u2019t have the new virus. We\u2019ve never observed it. We can\u2019t study it directly. There is no proof it exists. But we will use the test to detect it.<\/p>\n The study is titled,\u00a0\u201cDetection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.\u201d<\/em><\/a>\u00a0[Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):2000045. doi: 10.2807\/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.]<\/p>\n Those quotes from the study are astounding. A diagnostic test for the virus, but there is no virus. No standard against which to compare the reliability of the test.<\/p>\n The authors blithely assume they can somehow infer that the virus exists in the first place, without having an isolated specimen.<\/p>\n Then they assume they can understand the structure of the virus that isn\u2019t there.<\/p>\n The virus isn\u2019t there. It has NOT been isolated. It has NOT been separated out from other material. Therefore, it has not been observed and its existence has not been proved.<\/p>\n And yet, the test which these authors have developed is launched, all over the world, to detect that virus; to promote the unproven notion that there is a pandemic; to form the basis for counting COVID case numbers; and ultimately to justify all the lockdowns which have crashed the global economy and destroyed millions upon millions of lives.<\/p>\n A great deal of confusion has been created, because scientists are now talking about the \u201cnew virus\u201d as if they understand its structure and sequence. No. They\u2019ve INTERPRETED that genetic structure. And once they\u2019ve made their interpretations, they gibber about what it means.<\/p>\n It\u2019s like this. A man has a very thick steel vault. He clams there is a pile of treasure inside. But no one can open the door to the vault. People show up with all sorts of fancy instruments, and they make indirect measurements. They then issue very authoritative-sounding statements about what is inside the vault.<\/p>\n But no one can get in there. This is a magic vault, you see. You can\u2019t drill into it. You can\u2019t blow it up. But in its vicinity, all sorts of hustlers are gathered. And they PONTIFICATE. They BLOVIATE. They wave their credentials. Reporters interview them. Governments follow their recommendations.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s all it is. It\u2019s that kind of party.<\/p>\n There is also confusion about what the word \u201cisolate\u201d means, when it comes to viruses. SAYING you have isolated a virus doesn\u2019t mean you have.<\/p>\n It may mean you THINK you have the virus inside a mess of material which contains many different genetic sequences and all manner of cellular debris and who knows what.<\/p>\n Some scientists will claim \u201ca lesser amount of mess\u201d entitles them to state they\u2019ve \u201cisolated\u201d the virus.<\/p>\n Other scientists will claim that because they can grow, in a dish, what they BELIEVE to be the virus, this is \u201cproof\u201d that the virus exists.<\/p>\n They\u2019re wrong.<\/p>\n Still other scientists will say that, in a dish in a lab, they \u201chave the virus growing\u201d, and they know it, because the virus is destroying certain cells in the soup in the dish. But in this soup, there are various added chemicals, and those chemicals could easily be doing the cell-killing.<\/p>\n So they are wrong, too.<\/p>\n As the late independent researcher David Crowe has written: \u201cAnd the word \u2018isolation\u2019 has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is [as] \u2018isolation\u2019).\u201d<\/p>\n This is why something called real-world experiments were introduced into science. Experiments that were forced out of the lab into the arena where actual humans live.<\/p>\n