Exposing the COVID-19 SARS-Cov-2 ‘Isolate’ Fraud
I have been highlighting for some time that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) has never been isolated or positively identified [1,2,3,4]. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the virus exists, and by extension, the story of the COVID pandemic cannot be considered science-based or factual.
This idea of non-isolation of the virus has been gaining traction. A recent report further emphasized that the SAR-CoV-2 has not been isolated, along with any other viruses in the coronavirus family [5].
The use of the word “isolate,” with the implied meaning or representation of the term isolation of the virus, misled everyone, including physicians, scientists, experts. They assumed that the virus or viruses are real and have been physically isolated.
The article mentioned [5] above also clearly discredit the PCR test’s relevance and usefulness, as I have been saying for quite some time [6,7,8]. A prestigious international expert on the subject, Dr. Stephen Bustin, is quoted, describing both the arbitrariness of criteria for RNA results and choosing the number of cycles leading to anyone testing positive for COVID. The mentioned article [5] discusses the flaws of PCR tests and methodology for its use as a diagnostic tool.
On the other hand, as I have repeatedly described, the PCR test is a chemical test that has never been validated for its intended use. It is a blatant violation of the fundamental principle of science-based chemical/clinical testing. Such a test can never provide relevant and valid results. Surprisingly, such testing is accepted by the regulatory authorities, including the FDA. The test and its associated results should be withdrawn immediately.
In short, claims of isolation of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and the PCR test are shown to be scientifically invalid and irrelevant.
Read more at www.drug-dissolution-testing.com
About the author: Saeed A. Qureshi, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Saeed gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments.
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.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
In a separate article Prof Stephen Bustin is used to support the claim that the PCR is not adequate, but the professor claims to have developed a test that can identify the virus. If it has not been isolated, then what is his test identifying?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Alan:
Could you please provide a link to Prof. Bustin’s article you are referring to. Thanks.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Alan:
I got the link (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79233-x.pdf) describing the CoV2-ID. I assume this the test you are referring to in your comment. Thanks for sharing the information. Your comment is very valid.
Prof. Bustin’s method may provide improvement in PCR testing of an RNA compared to the traditional approach. However, the suggested testing approach, indeed, would not be valid for positively testing/identifying the virus or COVID.
The reason being, as I mentioned in the post above and other postings that for a test to be valid, it must be validated using a reference standard, isolated independently. Similarly, validation of a PCR test for Coronavirus (or COVID-19) requires a purified and isolated virus and/or its RNA specimen, which is not available at present; hence a valid PCR test has not been developed.
I hope this would clarify the confusion.
Reply
Tom
| #
I have very limited understanding of this so I’d be grateful for your help. I read all the time about new variants and how they have mapped the gnome of thousands. So can you explain how this is possible if they haven’t isolated “the virus” please.
I’m grateful for the information you have provided.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
“So can you explain how this is possible if they haven’t isolated “the virus” please.”
The simple and straightforward answer is, it is not possible.
Like the original virus (SARS-CoV-2), more accurately RNA sequence not the virus is a computer-generated one, so do the variants. Physical isolation and specimens are not available for any.
Reply
Tom
| #
I’m most grateful that you have taken the time to answer, thank you for your work.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Tom:
Thank you. You are most welcome.
Reply
Janine
| #
Thank you for the amazing work in getting the science out. I have noticed one thing, I was trying to post the 5th reference in this blog on it’s own and both twitter and FB say it is a dangerous link. As a biological chemist, there is another issue with the labs, why are they using bovine fetal serum with a supposed RNA virus? They use it with testing cancer drugs, why aren’t they isolating it from the BFS?
Thank you again Saeed
Reply
Jyrkoff
| #
Nope, no virus whatsoever, even though you can BUY IT FOR RESEARCH ONLINE:
https://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/search#q=sars-cov-2&sort=relevancy
Psst, hey man, wanna buy some Zika too?
https://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/Products/All/VR-1838.aspx?geo_country=bg#
I’m so damn sick of this whole “there is no virus” crap. These same people are speaking out of two mouths. The other mouth agrees there is a virus and argues that it’s no worse than seasonal flu and therefore we cannot justify the lockdowns or masks, etc. And follow logic, please: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Pick a narrative and stick to it, otherwise you have NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL.
Reply