The virus – deception at its best!
A couple of my followers on social media brought to my attention a recent publication published under a variety of headings, including news media, seeking opinion concerning the validity of claims made [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
In short, the study describes observations after inoculating the claimed SARS-COV-2 virus to healthy human volunteers to produce the virus effects.
The study claims that volunteers were “inoculated with 10 TCID50 of a wild-type virus (SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) intranasally in an open-label, non-randomized study …” [2]
This statement is incorrect and deceitful.
The study did not use the virus but an “isolate.” An isolate means part/portion of the growth culture (gunk) from a swab sample, with multiple ingredients added, including cells or debris, such as Africam green monkey kidney cells (or Vero cells).
Please, follow the (link) to see the description of the “virus.” It uses the word isolate in the title, not the virus, as presumed by the study’s authors.
I previously described the differences between a virus and the “isolate” on my blog. Please see here; (1, 2).
It further confirms that there has never been a virus (SARS-COV-2) isolated, and no virus sample is available anywhere.
Therefore, scientifically speaking, the virus (SARS-COV-2) and its illness (COVID-19 ) and its pandemic have been a hoax, as previously described (1,2, 3). The reported study provides further support for such an understanding.
The publication will undoubtedly cause serious damage to the scientific credibility of the journal and study authors. In addition, it will further expose the fictitiousness or fraudulent science aspect of virology.
See more here: bioanalyticx.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
The references 1 to 5 are a study of just 36 people. How can this have any significance? It is another indication of how randomise control trials are being devalued.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thirty-six (36) volunteers are a relatively small number, for certain, to give any credibility to the study.
However, the article’s main point, which might have been missed in your comment, is the false claim of virus evaluation, i.e., the study never used the claimed virus. Therefore, the study is entirely false or fraudulent.
Reply
Tom
| #
This is what passes for scientific study and research. Create a fake virus using some computer algorithms or in a test tube with all kinds of other junk. Going back to the 1918 Spanish flu, they have tried to make people sick by infecting them with mucus and germs from other sick people. They fail every time and there is absolutely no proof of how transmission occurs. Then only purpose of these fake pandemics to create fear and sell vaccines and injections that can never do any good except to make you sicker.
Reply
John Alexander
| #
Thanks Dr Saeed A. Qureshi,
Yes I agree with you. There is an excellent substack for people to follow on the Virus Deception. ViroLIEgy
https://viroliegy.com/
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Thank you Dr Qureshi,
You are among the people that has led me to abandon the pseudoscientce of virology.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thank you, Zoe Phin, for your kind words.
Regrettably, a respectable profession of science has been turned into a profession of lies and deceit. I have written to the Editor the journal (Nature Medicine) for his consideration on the issue (https://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/correspondence/Letter to Editor – Nature Medicine.pdf).
Let us hope that some positive comes out of it.
Regards
Saeed
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
If the link does not work, please copy and paste the complete URL up to pdf for searching. Thanks.
Reply