Open Letter to Steve Kirsch, January 10, 2022
You’ve published a blog titled “Has the virus been isolated? Yes“.
You go on to clarify that you actually have no idea if this is true, and that your title is based on faith in certain individuals:
“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. 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.“
Hmm. Well I personally don’t rely on other people’s beliefs – especially people with a long history involving many millions of dollars with the so-called “vaccine” industry that claims to protect us from alleged “viruses”.
Now to your credit, you did disclose that “isolate” means different things to a virologist versus a regular man or woman, or a scientist. But you didn’t explain to your readers what “isolate” actually means to a virologist. I think it’s important for the public to know. Don’t you agree?
Here’s an example, from researchers at the CDC:
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5 percent or 10 percent) and antibiotics/antimycotics… We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation.
For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL.
We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of five percent CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…
When CPEs [Cytopathic effects aka harm to the monkey cells] were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90 percent confluent 24-well plate.“
I’ve had to submit a FOIA request to the CDC for details of the vaguely referenced “mock infected cells” used in this study.
But the Methods that are available from Harcourt et al. (and all other “SARS-COV-2 isolation” studies) make clear that “isolation” to Robert Malone and anyone else who insists “yes, the virus has been isolated” means combining monkey kidney cells (aka “Vero” cells, or some other cell line) with fetal bovine serum, patient specimens and toxic drugs, and then irrationally, unscientifically attributing any resulting harm to the poisoned monkey cells (which are typically also malnourished by the researchers) to “the virus”.
Nothing is isolated as per the meaning of the word to regular humans, not even from the monkey/cow/human mixture.
And since no one on the planet has managed to cite or provide any record describing isolation/purification of the alleged “virus” or any “variant” from any patient sample, by anyone, anywhere, ever (which you seem to realize based on your repeated references to the FOIA collection that is publicly available on my website and now contains failures from 156 institutions in roughly 30 countries) it’s quite clear that no science has ever been carried out with the theoretical “virus”.
No one, including Sabine Hazan and the CDC researchers, has ever extracted genetic material from a purified sample of the alleged “virus” so that they could sequence “it” and characterize “it” to find out if the alleged RNA genome of 30,000 base pairs with a spiky protein shell actually exists. And no one, including Sabine Hazan and the CDC researchers, has performed fully controlled experiments to see if the alleged “it” actually spreads disease via natural modes of exposure. Because virology is not a science.
Since you brought up the curious “science” of Dr. Sabine Hazan, I’ll share with you the bizarre email exchange I had with Sabine that went off the rails as soon as I pointed out the blatant flaws in her same paper that you have cited.
Steve, I have a question for you. Regarding the expensive products that you promote and refer to as “virus” to your readers, have you ever read the descriptions of these products to find out what they actually contain?
From EVA’s product description:
“Infectious cell culture supernatant containing BetaCoV/France/IDF0372/2020, clade 19A…. Unit definition: one vial.. 2 000,00 € (Cost per access for Academics).”
Regarding the ATCC and other products that you’ve promoted, Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi, PhD, who spent 30+ years with Health Canada conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceuticals regulatory assessment and is an internationally recognized expert in pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, and analytical chemistry, felt the need to publish a warning: Buyer Beware!
“For $1200, what’s the customer really buying? A diluted human mucus/phlegm/mucus from swab samples with all kinds of added chemicals (30+), including African green monkey kidney cell (Vero cells) broth. In short, they are faking it and lying all the way with confidence and authority!”
Steve, last year I tracked down the origin of the so-called “SARS-COV-2 isolate” that is referred to as “MUC-IMB1” aka “BavPat1” and sold by companies like EVA (also for 2 000,00 € per vial). It turned out to be just more of what I call “monkey-business fraud”, in this case courtesy of the infamous team of Corman and Drosten. Never shown to have anything to do with “a virus”.
Maybe it’s time you do your own due diligence instead of repeating the wild unsubstantiated claims of your trusted experts, none of whom can prove the existence of any alleged virus in the complete and utter absence of any purified samples of such.
Best wishes,
Christine Massey, M.Sc.
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
See more here: fluoridefreepeel.ca
Header image: Researchgate
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.
Wisenox
| #
Excellent article.
Reply
Alan
| #
It does not matter to me whether it has been isolated or not. We have an experimental, inadequately trials treatment that should never have been given any approval. Nobody should have accepted the “vaccines” if they cared about their health.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Thanks Christine.
I doubt that you will get a satisfactory reply.
Please let us know the outcome of any further news.
Reply
Joel
| #
The horrors of the jab have exposed the soft underbelly of virology and the fact that neither “the virus” nor any virus for that matter has ever been isolated in actuality. This is and will always be the crux of the issue and it shouldn’t at all be surprising that people will go to great lengths to protect their religious belief in viruses. Steve Kirsch’s rant is a clear example of the tortured lengths people will go to uphold orthodox dogma. The entire matter is clearly medieval in character replete with orthodox religious dogma, true believers and heretics. People are going to believe in viruses and other influential myths simply because it’s far easier for them to do so than to actually deal with reality. Paradigm shifts can be brutal and even frightening, since so much is invested in the official narrative. Christine and those who prefer truth over falsehood are dealing in reality while Steve and other virus faithful are clearly not yet ready to do so.
Reply
Doug Hurley
| #
To be fair to Steve Kirsch, he doesn’t believe the overall narrative and has and is informing many people about the diabolical agenda that the deep state is perpetrating.
Reply
JFK
| #
I have no problem believing that there is no virus.
After all, if there was a virus, then they ought to be able to distinguish it from the flu… which they can’t – apparently. But that might just be pure incompetence or something intentional on their part.
However, you have to explain away what makes people sick at the same time.
I know people that didn’t want to visit the hospital but were forced to do so, because of their illness.
So, what is it?
5G? Chemicals? Multiple things?
Also, some of the symptoms are similar to other viral infections (sore throat, fever, etc).
Of course, that means nothing, apart from that some virus is probably involved at some stage of the whole disease progression.
Overall, it is easy to deny things, and harder to prove something different.
And it is the nature of modern science that requires too much equipment to figure things out by yourself. Having no budget, nor access to state-of-the-art labs, leaves you vulnerable to sold-out scientists that do anything to earn a living. On top of that, most people have no free time to investigate this, since they need to work to survive.
In the current situation, it is super clear that we are being fed fat lies, but I am not sure if the virus existence is part of the lies as well. And it is hard to figure out too, even if there are multiple indications about this.
Reply
Noel
| #
Dr Tom Cowan and Dr kaufman have proven that these viruses do not exist
Reply
JFK
| #
Perhaps they did.
But my argument still holds.
This is not a satisfactory explanation for what is going on.
What is making people sick?
Perhaps it is not THAT many people getting sick compared to previous years, but it is more that usual and with unusual and serious symptoms (loss of taste/smell, metallic taste in mouth, need for hospitalization, etc, etc).
So, what is it?
5G?
Perhaps the covid tests contain some pathogen?
Something in the food/water?
Because I know people that didn’t believe there was a virus, but ended up in the hospital and even died from it — whatever that “it” is…
Something is killing some people and forces them to visit the hospital.
Even if there is no virus, the problem remains.
Most definitely, not the same inflated problem that is presented on TV, but at least what I describe above.
Reply
john
| #
JFK – I have the same questions. I know what their (ie. Cowan and friends) answers are – they could be correct, and in fact my gut tells me the virus theory has too many free parameters to make any sense – but these answers from Cowan have no proof either. They are intelligent speculation, but there is no proof in the form of controlled tests.
Reply
TZVI
| #
You are correct it has not been isolated…however when they were able to grow in ( monkey) Vero cells and sequence to match the supposed SARS COV-2 virus : “We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing ”
Growing virus in a bunch of background soup in order to isolate what was injected into does prove existence of some pathogen IMHO, however it is not in any form Isolation….That is clear. So to me, and my very humble opinion, proves something matching their test requirements ( however vague) exists as SARS COV-2.
The exact structure, every mutation, new release, etc, is called into question by such sloppy methods ( non isolation). This lack of transparency is intentional, and is in my humble opinion allowed so as to induce doubt in thinking minds.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
@“We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing.” This is a deceptive statement to make people believe that “sconce” is being done for the “virus” or “disease.” However, there is nothing of this sort happened. For example,
There is no viral lysate; the experiment is conducted to find (isolate) the virus. However, they assume or claim the virus is already there. How?
Extraction is claimed to be done for nucleic acid. Nucleic acid is a chemical compound/molecule, not a virus. These are two completely two separate things. There is no evidence that nucleic acid is from the virus. The virus first needs to be isolated/separated; then nucleic acid is separated from IT. The claim or assumption that nucleic is extracted from a virus is logically and scientifically incorrect. The experiment does not provide any support.
@ “So to me, and my very humble opinion, proves something matching their test requirements (however vague) exists as SARS COV-2.” This does not prove anything or the virus because SARS-COV-2 is a virus, and they never worked with the virus. They are supposed to isolate it. It did not happen. They worked with soup/junk (called lysate), presumably containing some RNA.
However, the majority of people, including medical professionals and experts, believe that there is something (superstition) and, let us call it SARS-COV-2 (https://bioanalyticx.com/imaginary-objects/)
In short, there is no science or isolation of the virus.
Reply
Tom
| #
Great article. Even the mRNA injection makers (drug companies) stated that they used computer models to generate a virus similar to what they believed covid was. They guesstimated their poisons and that is why they are useless except to murder humanity.
Reply
coronistan.blogspot.com
| #
The most important thing in my view is that the world understands now that THERE IS NO VIRUS! All what they are doing is based on lies, lies and lies!
All you need to know: THE ENTIRE VIROLOGY HAS BEEN REFUTED! There is no virus, no variant/mutation, and there was never a pandemic! https://www.wissenschafftplus.de
The BGH and the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart have refuted all allegations about the suspected “measles virus”, the infection of measles and the measles vaccination.
TRUST ULTRA TRUST NAOMI – https://www.bitchute.com/video/05OsGCekumz9/
Virology Debunks Corona – https://www.bitchute.com/video/YKktYdEGBRnP/
Blog: https://coronistan.blogspot.com
Reply
scott
| #
I don’t know what to believe anymore but here’s Mercola’s take: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/01/17/sars-cov-2-real-virus.aspx
Reply
steve kirsch
| #
Since you are an expert on the topic, let me know when you’d like to accept a 5 hour zoom call so you can show the world that my experts all got it wrong. This will be fun. You can prove that there has never been a virus and other fun things like that.
Please supply at least 3 different dates/times
Email your request to [email protected]
We look forward to chatting with you.
Reply
Christine Massey
| #
Here is my response to Steve’s comment above, and the email he sent to me today:
Hi Steve,
I was confused by your “YET AGAIN” reference since this is the 1st email I’ve ever received from you (to my knowledge), but now I see that you are on the Doctors for Covid Ethics email list. So I take it you’ve seen some of my previous exchanges and the challenges that I posed to everyone on that list to prove the existence of any disease-spreading “virus”.
Sabine Hazan was the only one on that list who offered me any allegedly scientific papers, and as you can hopefully see they did not meet the challenge. Tests that are only designed to detect a tiny genetic sequence (the finer details of which Sabine refused to share with me) and fabricated “genomes” that have never been shown to correspond to anything in the physical realm are not proof of a “virus”.
Are you claiming that they are? Does “your expert” Sabine still insist that they are? Do either of you insist that any in silico “SARS-COV-2 genome” has ever been shown to correspond to a physical thing?
Steve, you might recall that I asked you a question in my Open Letter:
“Regarding the expensive products that you promote and refer to as “virus” to your readers, have you ever read the descriptions of these products to find out what they actually contain?”
Are you willing to answer? I’d be happy to publish your response.
Judging by your email and the comment you left under my Open Letter, I take it you are inviting me to a 5 hour zoom call with you and “your experts”, including Sabine Hazan. Steve, a 5 hour zoom call is not something I’m even a little bit interested in, with anyone, let alone people who publish blatant anti-science and come unhinged when I point out obvious flaws in their publications.
I will agree to this though: have one of “your experts” Sabine, Robert Malone, James Lyons-Weiler or Li-Meng Yan send me any paper that they believe proves the existence of the alleged disease-spreading virus, “SARS-COV-2”. Or any other virus. Or, you could start thinking for yourself and send me a paper that you actually believe proves such a thing.
Keep In mind that a proof must not rely on any unsubstantiated claims (i.e. “we know what coronaviruses look like”).
I am only 1 woman and can’t spend every waking hour responding to every wild claim that is sent my way, and I’ve already wasted many hours responding to Peter McCullough, you and now Dr. Mercola. So 1 or 2, or maximum 3 papers. What do you say?
Best wishes,
Christine
Reply
Sara
| #
Christine Massey – Please do it! Please! The point isn’t to change his mind, it’s to reach his listeners. Agree on a moderator if you feel necessary, adopt some basic ground rules, a lot of us would really like to hear a long form opportunity to address all these points.
Reply
herbert smith
| #
“Since you are an expert on the topic, let me know when you’d like to accept a 5 hour zoom call so you can show the world that my experts all got it wrong. ”
Tacit admission that your position is based upon your belief in ‘your’ experts not upon your knowledge base.
Reply
john
| #
This is not unreasonable. I have a biomedical engineering phd but this stuff is way over my head. I can’t decide for myself. I can’t do a double slit experiment either, but I don’t doubt it happens.
Someone specifically told me this when I started my phd, and it’s true – that you must learn to discern good from bad papers without looking at every technical detail. How is it presented? What do they volunteer? What do they skip? Where are they clear, and where do they obfuscate? A magician really pulling a dove from a hat wouldn’t need a screen – is there a screen?
Is this infallible? Of course not. But it’s not practical to do every invesitgation from first principles yourself.
Reply
Rory Larson
| #
It seems we have three possible hypotheses in play: 1) The SARS-COV-2 virus exists in the wild and is presumably responsible for the COVID-19 disease syndrome; 2) Other viruses exist, but SARS-COV-2 is a fraud; 3) Viruses do not exist, and all of virology is a fraud. The latter two are hard to swallow, but we keep hearing that SARS-COV-2 has never been isolated, with no convincing rebuttal.
Is it normal that other viruses, especially coronaviruses, are physically isolated in a purified solution, or directly observable under an electron microscope? Or does the identification of all viruses depend entirely on PCR-like assays of genetic fragments against predetermined biomolecular targets? Thus, is there anything abnormal about the fact that such a significant virus as SARS-COV-2 has not been “isolated”?
Much gratitude to both Steve Kirsch and Christine Massey for all their heroic work in challenging the Vax-Covidian cult.
Reply
TQO
| #
Rory: 1. No virus has ever been physically isolated, if by isolation you mean purification. Things that are claimed to be viruses are observed under microscopes but no proof has been provided that the things photographed are what they are claimed to be 2. Viruses are claimed to be identified only by cell culture and subsequent sequencing. 3. No, the case is the same for all other supposed viruses.
Reply
TM
| #
If physically-isolated viruses do not exist, what pray tell are the “purified viruses” offered for sale by ATCC at the following link? Are these not “purified viruses” as advertised?
https://www.atcc.org/microbe-products/virology/purified-viruses#t=productTab&numberOfResults=24
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
This explains what they are selling (https://bioanalyticx.com/buyer-beware/).
Reply
ipsofacto
| #
PhD molecular biologist here. Many of the techniques being discussed are ones that I have done, in some cases, on a daily basis.
The idea that no viruses of any kind exist is false. Bacteriophages are probably the most numerous and common biological entities on earth. They are viruses that infect bacteria. The field of molecular biology owes its very existence to bacteriophage research, particularly the T4, T7, and lambda phages.
I understand that some people have an issue with the terms “isolation” and “purification”. It might seem that they ought to mean the same thing, but in practice they don’t. One problem is that there is considerable overlap between the meaning of the two words. Here’s an example from protein purification: you lyse a culture of cells, and separate out the various fractions depending on what you’re looking for. This can take many steps, and at each step, you are enriching for your target protein. When 50% of the total mass of a fraction is your protein, have you “isolated” it? The answer is yes, you have. But, have you “purified” it? The answer is no, because it is only at 50% purity; there is another 50% of stuff in your fraction. Let’s say you continue your purification process and now reach 99%. Have you “isolated” the protein? Every working scientist will say “yes”, it has been isolated.
But has it been purified?
Now that depends on who you’re asking. Some protein preparations need to get to 99.9% “purity” before they can be used reliably (e.g., high-fidelity DNA polymerases).
But I think most working scientists would say that 99% is pretty darn good, and yes, “purified”. Most discoveries in enzymology and molecular biology were done with far less pure isolates, back in the day.
Back to virology…and I’ll use bacteriophage as a starting point:
1) You can see bacteriophage under an electron microscope. It is common, and I have done this myself. A quick search for T4 and T7 phages will show you some really interesting pictures, especially the one that looks like a lunar lander.
2) You can purify bacteriophage particles by growing them in a culture of cells. This is actually easy to do. In fact, educational supply company Carolina Biological sells E. coli bacteriophage kits for anyone to do this at home! You can buy for $10 a vial of “pure” bacteriophage.
Here’s the crux of this discussion: A “pure” preparation of bacteriophage probably has some fragments of DNA from its host bacterial cells. According to some people on this board, this is evidence that any DNA sequencing done from this preparation cannot be trusted because of contaminating DNA from the host bacterial cell culture.
This view is incorrect, however. One way (among several) to show that DNA sequence of the bacteriophage DNA is real and not contaminated by the host bacterial is simply to dilute the sample. To do DNA sequencing properly and reliably, you need enough starting material of sufficient quality to do the sequencing. So to avoid picking up the bacterial DNA, you can do serial dilutions by factors of 10, with each dilution being 1/10 the previous. You can reach whatever dilution level you’re comfortable with, and then sequence away. If you repeat this dilution and sequencing a bunch of times, and your resulting sequence is always the same over each run, you can safely say that you’re sequencing the phage DNA, not the bacterial contaminant.
The problem with the terms “isolated” and “purified” is that in a laboratory working context, “isolated” is sufficient for many experiments, and “purified” is almost never 100% pure. If you look hard enough (and have the methods even to do so), you’ll always find some impurities. Even in a 99.9% pure protein preparation, there will always be molecules of other stuff present (by definition), not to mention the water and buffers in which the protein is dissolved.
If one insists that you must have 100% purification to prove anything, where 100% of the mass of your sample is ONLY your substance of interest, this is a hypothetical standard that does not exist and has never existed in molecular biology. It barely even exists in chemistry, as most compounds you buy from Sigma Chemical Co. only reach 99.9%. The very best you can get is (probably) 99.99%, and that is exceedingly rare. Most of the research upon which molecular biology is built over the past 60 years was done with experiments using “purified” samples of maybe around 80% – 95% purity. But molecular biology is real, even if the edifice on which it rests was built using stuff that were only 80% – 95% pure.
3) You can infect naive cells with your purified bacteriophage sample. In fact, that is one of the experiments described in the Carolina Biological kits for high school kids to do.
In other words, the things seen under the electron microscope most certainly did infect the bacterial cells in subsequent experiments. You can see pics of this in any molecular biology textbook.
So…onto SARS-COV2 that you order from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection, a great resource from which I’ve ordered many times), is it “isolated” and/or “purified”?
Here’s the description of one of them on ATCC’s site: “Each vial contains approximately 0.25 mL of heat-inactivated, clarified cell lysate and supernatant from Calu-3 cells (ATCC HTB-55) infected with SARS-CoV-2 strain USA/MD-HP05285/2021.”
What this means is that the original clinical isolate (yes, probably snot from a patient) was put into cell culture and grown up. The lysate and supernatant (i.e., the cell growth media) are present in the sample they sell to you.
OK, so is the said sample “isolated” or “purified”? Answer: “isolated”. So why didn’t they actually purify it to, say, 99% purity? Because it’s expensive, laborious, and possibly dangerous, and the method used is a standard method and has been used for decades. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? That’s another question for another day.
As for people who might now accept that bacteriophage viruses exist but are still doubtful about other viruses, I’ll conclude with a virus we’ve all heard of: smallpox. This was isolated, purified, photographed via electron micrography long ago. One medical school in England (Birmingham) had been continuing to do research on the smallpox virus and an accidental leak occurred in 1978. A woman working there died, and her body had the characteristic sores of smallpox. So if no human viruses exist, then smallpox (variola) does not exist. But then how do you explain the Birmingham lab leak, and someone onsite who got sick with exactly the symptoms of smallpox?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Ipsofacto
“Most of the research upon which molecular biology is built over the past 60 years was done with experiments using “purified” samples of maybe around 80% – 95% purity. But molecular biology is real, even if the edifice on which it rests was built using stuff that were only 80% – 95% pure.”
Is there 80%-95% pure and isolated SARS-COV-2 virus (not isolate or lysate) sample available from somewhere? The scientific community needs that, and the debate will be over. Please share your thoughts and a link or reference to get such a sample.
However, it seems by saying
“OK, so is the said sample “isolated” or “purified”? Answer: “isolated”. So why didn’t they actually purify it to, say, 99% purity? Because it’s expensive, laborious, and possibly dangerous, and the method used is a standard method and has been used for decades. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? That’s another question for another day.”
You appear to agree that it is NOT available. Therefore, it should be correct to conclude that the pure and isolated sample is not available. The reason it is not available is, in your view, that it would be expensive, laborious and possibly dangerous, but ASSUME it is isolated and available. What kind of science is this?
If you like to know more about assuming and assumptions, this blog might be of interest to you (https://bioanalyticx.com/the-science-behind-the-coronavirus-and-covid-19/).
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ipsofacto,
Could the reason for not purifying the virus be that if it is done, it will show that the virus is the one created in North Carolina (reported in Nature in 2015) and then moved to Wuhan for further gain of function work by Fauci and NIH?
Herb
Reply
Rory Larson
| #
Hi Herb,
I like the direction you’re thinking. If the virus is isolatable, but has not been isolated, then we have two possible conspiracy theories. One is that the virus does not exist and is a complete hoax, a conclusion that is widely touted. The other is that “it” does exist, but identifying it directly would damage the dominant narrative. You’re thinking that it would trace back to North Carolina and GoF research. I’ve been thinking that there might actually be two viruses instead of one, and that the one that is causing the covid disease would prove not to be the same as the in-silica model against which we are being vaccinated.
Reply
John
| #
ipsofacto
“OK, so is the said sample “isolated” or “purified”? Answer: “isolated”. So why didn’t they actually purify it to, say, 99% purity? Because it’s expensive, laborious, and possibly dangerous, and the method used is a standard method and has been used for decades. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? That’s another question for another day.”
I find this deeply suspicious. Expensive? The world has closed down. That was expensive too. I do industrial R&D (engineering) – I know very well from experience that putting stuff off because it’s expensive/fiddly/boring or whatever and assuming it is true instead is a giant red flag, and unturned rock that will often return to haunt you. Do it. Prove it. Knock it off the list of suspects once and for all and move on with a solid footing.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Absolutely correct.
Do it once. Do it right.
Reply
Rory Larson
| #
Hi Ipsofacto,
Thank you for that very illuminating essay. I understand the process of viral identification much better now, and also what is meant by “purified”. I gather that “isolated” means that you have purified it to the extent of having a physical sample that you can work with.
On the question of the existence of viruses, I think you’ve made your case, and I find that a great relief. What we need to know here is that we can actually grab one, and are not trying to reconstruct an unknown animal on the basis of footprints, scats, and broken twigs.
In my mind, that leaves hypotheses 1 and 2. Granting that samples are never 100% “pure”, what is your take on the claim that SARS-COV-2 has never been “isolated”?
Reply
Steven Avery
| #
Ipsofacto, you are using bacteriophage “viruses” as the plumb line to prove the existence of viruses. Yet, this is precisely where Stefan Lanka first got off the virus merry-go-round. So you should relate to his claims about mini-spores being misidentified as viruses.
If they were a virus by the modern definition they would have to hijack the cell replication function of the bacteria. I do not think you are making that claim.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Reply
Matt Steele
| #
Hi Christine,
I’m new to this blog but have been looking into the isolation question for over a year now.
If he wants to debate and bring on his Experts (Mallone, McCullough, Sabine, etc.), why not put together your own team of experts to join you as well (Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman) and just do it.
Get Mike Adam’s or someone neutral from the alternative news scene to moderate it so it’ll be fair.
I know I’d pay to see something like that, and I’m sure that video would get spread far and wide getting millions of views and being banned more times than you could count.
But it would definitely get this issue more out in the open and in the forefront of a lot of people’s thinking.
What are your thoughts?
Reply
KB
| #
I can understand why Christine is afraid to debate or engage with Robert Malone directly. She is not a medical doctor and doesn’t study the data but instead appeals to authority like any other indoctrinated college teacher. Those who cannot do, teach. But I don’t see why Steve Kirsch pays any attention to Christine at all. She’s not really a part of the discussion and would not perform well in open debate. Hence this chicken-like “open letter” response. It would have showed better game to have just ignored Steve’s offer to debate than put forth this weak sauce.
Reply
Joel
| #
KB
The debate proposed by Steve would be a complete waste of time. People who truly believe in viruses are going to do so no matter what because virology is scientism not science. In other words, it’s completely unproven, but that hasn’t stopped people from believing in it and even building an entire industry based on it.
The problem isn’t just the inability to isolate viruses because even if you did, you’d then have to prove they actually cause the diseases they are claimed to cause. This has never been done for any so-called viral disease, including the famous covid-19. None of this matters in this field because established authorities just pronounce these things and the faithful blindly run with it. A debate would make no difference here.
Reply
James Johnson
| #
i follow steve h and came across this debate. i have no informed opinion but was under imrpession virus had not been isolated. questions:
is there an accepted d2finition of isolated?
what does an isolated version of a rhinovirus look like, contain? ie one less controversial.
else this lloks like tempest in teapot.
Reply
Steven Avery
| #
The holes in virus theory are huge:
isolation and purification
transmission
disease causation
And I find a fourth one especially interesting, all the theories around the virus being captured inside the cell, then hijacking cell replication functions, and then either bursting (lysis) or budding out of the cell. Supposedly destroying some good cells, causing illness. And the normally inactive/dead virus becomes super-smart, able to hijack a wide variety of cells.
This theory should have been a major breakthrough when first promulgated in human viruses, with lots of reproducible experiments showing the cell replication hijacking and then lots of viruses available for study (especially in lysis theory.).
However, this (highly speculative and unlikely) theory has no paper trail, no peer review, it is just Dogma by Osmosis.
Reply