The Science that Exposes the COVID19 Virus as a Hoax
Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) and written admissions by authorities about the COVID19 virus by several English-speaking governments reveals that NONE have successfully isolated and proven the existence of the novel coronavirus. Herein we explain the unresolved scientific issues that render this pandemic a massive hoax.
Yesterday Principia Scientific International revealed that Britain, Ireland, the United States and New Zealand had admitted their lack of evidence for COVID19. Our science and medical experts thus determined that, absent any official and verifiable laboratory proof of a novel virus, there can be no realistic prospect of a vaccine to defend against it.
Supporting our conclusion is data for excess deaths in the US and UK and other nations, this indicates nothing abnormal from excess mortality numbers in 2019/20 compared to previous years. We know that in the UK influenza and pneumonia contributed to more weekly deaths than Covid-19. While Sweden, which had no wholesale lockdown policy, reports fewer deaths.
With no verified laboratory isolation showing a ‘gold standard’ of a novel virus plus no evidence of a severe impact from such a ‘deadly’ new coronavirus then there can be no scientific basis for continuation of lockdown policies, which even the World Health Organization admits are not helping. We are therefore calling out this pandemic as a hoax.
One of Principia Scientific’s own experts, Dr Saeed Qureshi, who spent decades working as a specialist in the field of government health and laboratory testing, has been revealing the lack of any ‘gold standard’ for this pathogen since last summer. In his expert opinion the isolation and characterization of the virus (SARS-CoV2) does not exist.
We named and shamed one university already for falsely declaring it has isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
We are urging everyone to be watchful of false claims and twisted scientific presentations. In this article we asked Dr Qureshi to add more detail for new readers on this developing aspect of the pandemic. He writes:
It is common sense and logical to expect that if existence of some material is claimed then it presence must be established using valid and well-recognised practices and laws of science. For example if it is suggested that certain geographical area may provide significant amount of useful mineral such as gold or oil then that mineral must be extracted, isolated and characterized before proceeding for its large scale production for the public benefit and commercial gains. The same understanding has to be applied in other areas including the medical and pharmaceutical areas. For example, at present the world is alleged to be in the grip of a serious and wide spread disease (pandemic) referred to as COVID-19 caused by a virus labelled as SARS-CoV2. Hence, there is an urgent need for a treatment of this disease. It is important to note that medical community has declared apparently with certainty that disease (COVID-19) exists and is caused by the virus SARS-CoV2.
It should then be logical to assume that medical science or scientists must have extracted, isolated and characterised the virus and its disease (COVID-19) – however, apparently not! There have been some reports describing isolation and characterization of the virus which, scientifically speaking, are not only false but outright deceitful [1, 2, 3]. This situation is explained here by critically evaluating one of such publications.
“Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia [3].
Concerning the false claim, the direct and short answer could be found in the text of the article itself, i.e. “In consultation with the World Health Organization, the viral isolate was shared with domestic and international reference laboratories within 24 hours, and lodgement with major North American and European culture collections for further distribution is underway”.
The title of the article states “isolation of novel corona virus”, while the text describes it as “viral isolate”. These two terms are very different. Isolation of virus means extraction of virus in its purest form. On the other hand, viral isolate means – a culture/mixture/soup of various things with virus present as one of its components. An isolate is generally a mixture of known and unknown components. An analogy would be – molasses is an isolate of sugarcane or sugar but does not represent (pure) sugar. Even the presence of the virus in culture cannot be established without comparing it with a prior and independently isolated and characterised SARS-CoV2 itself. Therefore, the title of the publication and its claims regarding virus should be considered false and dodgy.
Reviewing the study/publication in further detail would clearly show lack of logic and underlying science for the isolation and characterization of the virus.
The study describes that the isolate was obtained or harvested from a patient admitted to the hospital with the following symptoms – fever (38.1°C), a cough with sputum production, O2 saturation 94% and with progressive dyspnoea. Other usual routine clinical tests showed elevated readings.
Intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g/day) and azithromycin (500 mg/day) were commenced on admission day 4 to treat potential secondary bacterial pneumonia. The patient gradually improved; fever, productive cough and dyspnoea resolved by admission day 12, and he was discharged from hospital.
The question is why this patient was suspected and tested for SARS-CoV2. The patient appeared to have usual and routine symptoms of flu or infection which was being treated with antibiotics (ceftriaxone and azithromycin) leading to patient’s recovery. However, as reported, test was performed for SARS-CoV2 and as follows:
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples: A nasopharyngeal swab and sputum collected on presentation were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real time RT-PCR assay. No virus was detected in urine samples or in single faecal or plasma samples. Note here that RT-PCR test is for testing RNA/DNA not for virus. A RNA or DNA is like filament in a light bulb, albeit an important and critical component, but is not a light bulb. Making claim that virus was detected and establish is false and incorrect. In addition, the RT-PCR test is a non-specific and notoriously known and accepted for its false positive and negative outcomes [4]. It is a non-validated test which cannot even detect relevant RNA or DNA correctly. Therefore, in reality, an assumption was made here that patient (single patient, n=1) has the particular virus which would be SARS-CoV2 and a non-specific and irrelevant RT-PCR virus-test was applied to establish this assumption.
The procedure of obtaining viral isolate, as described in the publication, may be considered as a vague narration of typical chemical polymerization process while monitoring all the steps and progressions using again the invalid RT-PCR test. In short, scientifically speaking, there is indeed no evidence that virus was present and/or isolated. Showing pictures of electron microscope by highlighting “virus-like” spherical bodies with spikes do not demonstrate or establish presence of the SARS-CoV2 virus.
A true isolation or extraction of virus means obtaining a physical sample of pure virus (particles) in a test tube or vial. The virus has to be characterised with standard and well-recognised physical and chemical tests providing detailed description such as: physical characteristics; dimensions, there-dimensional structure and layering/coating; chemical composition including elemental analyses for the whole virus and its individual components such as RNA, DNA, proteins, lipids etc.; and spectral analysis including IR, UV, NMR and MS profiles along with a stability profile.
This extracted and well characterized (reference) virus should then be used in analytical labs for the development of analytical methods or tests to be able to quantitatively measure its content in different biological matrixes such as blood and tissues of animals and humans. This reference virus, well-characterized and quantifiable, is then be used by virologists, physicians, microbiologists, infection experts, among others, to produce and reproduce the infection (COVID-19) in biological models including animals and humans with specific and quantifiable symptoms.
There is nothing of this sort is described in literature including the publication under discussion. It is not clear how and on what basis scientists are claiming that the virus has been isolated. It is very important to note that isolation and characterization of virus belongs to area of chemistry (the underlying science). However, most of the work reported in literature including in this publication is by experts from the area of medicine, immunology or infectious disease who arguably hardly would have any relevant training, expertise or experience in the science of extraction and characterization of any substance including virus.
Their experience and expertise in this area appear to be SOP (ritual) based practices which lack relevance to science of material (virus) extraction or isolation and its valid characterizations. Their work and claims could easily be challenged and shown false on scientific merit.
Unfortunate situation is that public perceives and believes that most claims made by the experts/scientists and authorities are science based, and studies and testing would have been conducted using the virus. Some examples of the claims made are: (1) SARS-CoV2 virus exists; (2) SARS-CoV2 is contagious; (3) SARS-CoV2 is 5 or 10 deadlier than common flu virus; (4) face-masks provide protection from the virus; (5) social distance (2m) protect public by stopping or reducing the spread of the virus; (6) washing hands or exposed skin surfaces provide protection from the virus; (7) lockdown (partial or full) help reducing the spread of the virus; (8) current significant increase in positive test results (“cases”) show wide spread of SARS-CoV2 virus; (9) vaccines are underdevelopment, with various time schedules for availability, to protect patients/public from SARS-CoV2 virus.
All these claims require validation using physical samples of the virus – but nowhere virus could be found and no one seems to be working on this aspect. There is no scientific evidence available in support of linking these claims to virus because virus has yet to be isolated and characterised. The only way such claim and associated policies can be justified if one can conduct experiments using physical sample of the virus.
Extremely simple experiments, at least in some cases such as establishing usefulness of masks [5], can be conducted if virus samples are available. But as the virus sample is not available hence even such claim (usefulness of masks) cannot be established or confirmed.
Experts and authorities are requested to reconsider their views concerning science and evidence in declaring the presence of the virus, its link to the disease along with its spread. Scientifically, there is no evidence available in support of the above claims and measures.
References:
[1] https://mra.asm.org/content/9/11/e00169-20
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/
[3] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/mja2.50569
[4] https://principia-scientific.org/international-pharmaceuticals-expert-exposes-pandemic-fakery/
Read more at www.drug-dissolution-testing.com
If one requires specific references to the views presented here, they could be obtained by visiting the site (www.drug-dissolution-testing.com) or directly contacting the author at [email protected].
About the author: Saeed A Qureshi PhD 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.
Norman
| #
I think the good Doctor has a case of ignorance overload. I had Covid in August and was out of work for 3 weeks with fever, chills, fatigue, nausea. I really think he speaks from a low level of experience with this one. Maybe, if he is so convinced the virus is not real, he could go to a Canadian ICU with no protection around Covid admitted patients. He has nothing to fear as it is not a real disease. This type of information is a discredit to this blog.
Here is some reality for anyone interested in the Truth and not this false and misleading narrative. Here is an article that directly discredits this entire article and it can be labeled false and misleading. Also dangerous if any would think it truthful.
https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/#:~:text=Sigh%2C%20yes%2C%20and%20yes%20the,confirmed%20human%20COVID%2D19%20cases.
Reply
Abc
| #
What you are describing above sounds like the flu, it does not prove you had CV19…
Reply
Alan
| #
I don’t see how this can be called a hoax just because there are claims that the virus has not been isolated. It may be true that the virus has not been isolated but there is obviously something causing the deaths. Is it just a bad flu season?
If there is a hoax it must be the testing system because it does not, as reported, identify the source of viral RNA detected and it does not show that people testing positive are infectious. Policies are being based on inaccurate case numbers, often associated with computer predictions, all known to be wrong in the past.
I don’t know much about biology, but the process described here about how an isolated sample of the virus is used to develop and test vaccines makes sense. Empty promises from politicians about vaccines due soon, do not.
However, Norman posts a link to a site giving references claiming to have isolated the virus. If Principia Science is going to make claims it should also tell us about opposite claims and why they are wrong, if that is the case.
Reply
geran
| #
Alan, you hit on it.
The “hoax” begins when we are told that it is much worse than any normal flu. The tests are very inaccurate, and the number of deaths are seriously exaggerated.
Reply
Norman
| #
Geran
Only in your opinion. You have zero evidence to support anything you say. Mostly you are as ignorant on this blog as you were on Roy Spencer’s blog. You basically are clueless of what you are talking about.
Reply
frank
| #
whether covid is a real disease or not makes no difference at this point.
the discussion of existence is only a distraction from the real hardships people are facing because of the fear porn that has promoted 24/7
it is not a valid excuse for shutting down the world, crashing economies and putting the population in fear
There is zero justification for the actions of governments world-wide
Reply
Norman
| #
Frank
Maybe you should ask the opinion of Health Care workers that deal with this illness. Hospitals fill up, many patients die. The goal is to keep the Hospitals from overfilling. Does that help?
geran
| #
Norman, it’s been a couple of years so I don’t remember all the examples where you distorted science. But, I do remember you earned the nickname “Con-man”.
Are you still trying to con people?
Reply
Glen Allen
| #
Norman
Take your mask off and stop watching tv, you might be able to think straight.
Reply
Norman
| #
Glen Allen
Maybe it would be better for you to be less ignorant. I had the disease and your words make you sound really ignorant. I think that of most who comment on things they know nothing about but think they do. Believe what you need to. Hope you don’t get a bad version of what you refuse to accept as real. So many ignorant people like you first claim it is a hoax then they end up in the Hospital near death and warn the people to take it seriously. Fools wonder around thinking they know things and pretending to have knowledge.
Maybe watch this. Possibly you won’t remain ignorant but that is unknown at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WMmkxg-Y34
geran
| #
Norman always reveals his true colors. Notice he used the word “ignorant” in about every other sentence. That’s his technique. He promotes his opinions by insulting others.
It’s called “trolling”. And Norman excels at it.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thank you Abc, Alan, Geran, and Frank for your comments. I am not sure what are Norman’s expertise and academic background. Could you (Norman) please describe them, so that I could explain science differently which may be easier to understand?
As it stands now, 4 out of 5 are expressing concerns about the virus and its associated disease, which should be a good start for Norman to think about.
One thing, Norman please keep in mind that also described in the article, when one’s talks about tests/testing one is talking about analytical science/chemistry. Going to hospitals, virology, physicians, healthcare workers, and epidemiologists is not relevant. You should consult analytical chemistry labs and books for the relevant and correct answers. In this regard, as noted in the article, PCR tests are for RNA/DNA not for the virus. Further, as the PCR-tests are not validated test (reflected as providing often false positive/negative results) their results cannot even be relied upon for relevant RNA/DNA presence or absence as well. Therefore, there is no accurate and valid testing of RNA/DNA (based on analytical science) and by extension virus and its disease.
Hope this will help. Let me know if you need further explanation.
Reply
Norman
| #
Saeed Qureshi
I have a Chemistry degree and like to keep informed of science issues. The PCR test is for sequences of the virus that are unique to it as to identify it correctly as the cause for the illness. There are lots of false negatives but very few false positives. You may have the virus but the test does not pick it up. Much less likely you don’t have the virus and the test says you do. So there is considerable difference in these distinctions.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks for the information. Could you please elaborate which type of degree and chemistry discipline you studied? This will help in understanding why it is becoming so difficult for you to understand lack of chemistry aspect in the PCR deficiencies. For example:
“The PCR test is for sequences of the virus …” incorrect! The PCR test is for sequences of the RNA/DNA not for virus. There is no test available to detect the virus. To establish the uniqueness of DNA to virus, virus must first be extracted, isolated and identified. From here, DNA must be isolated and identified FIRST and linked to it the actual virus. As the virus has never been isolated and identified – identity and uniqueness of the DNA cannot be established at present. Hence PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus means nothing.
Cause of the illness: As the virus has not been identified yet, therefore, its link to disease cannot be established. One can image or dream about it but that would not be reality or scientific.
Hope this will help.
If this does not help, please let us know where you saw THE virus, or find in the information showing THE virus (physical sample) as well the virus is causing the disease. This would greatly be appreciated, will help in resolving the pandemic issue and possibly winning you a Noble Prize. Go for it.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Saeed:
As the virus has never been isolated and identified – identity and uniqueness of the DNA cannot be established at present.
James:
So, Norman, Saeed is essentially calling you a liar. He is saying that you are pretending to know something that is verifiably unknown/unknowable. Do you have any knowledge virus having been isolated and identified?
This is your chance to redeem yourself.
James McGinn
Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Much-of-Science-Involves-Models-That-Have-Been-Dumbed-Down-to-Pander-to-the-Public-e9c1vd
Hence PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 virus means nothing.
Reply
geran
| #
I’ve had to put up with Norman before. He trolls blogs, trying to peddle his pseudoscience. He has no science background. It has been determined that he got a weak (BA) degree in “kitchen” chemistry from a liberal-arts institution that no longer offers such a weak degree.
I used to call him “con-man”, for obvious reasons.
Reply
Norman
| #
Saeed Qureshi
I already posted the material on the first post. I suggest you look at it. It goes totally against what you say.
https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/#:~:text=Sigh%2C%20yes%2C%20and%20yes%20the,confirmed%20human%20COVID%2D19%20cases
And here: I am quite correct in my understanding of how the r-PCR test determines if there is Coronavirus present.
https://virologydownunder.com/yes-pcr-tests-can-detect-the-covid-virus/
As I stated (that you called incorrect) they use a couple RNA sequences of the virus that are unique to it. They give the probability of this sequence occurring outside of Coronavirus as small. All the links to Covid virus have been done. You may need to keep up on your reading on this topic. They have the whole virus genome so they can easily pick a small portion of this genetic material to look for a unique signature in sick people.
Here is one sample of the Code of Corona virus for Covid 19
https://www.snapgene.com/resources/coronavirus-resources/?resource=SARS-CoV-2_(COVID-19)_Genome
There are others. They have the whole code of the virus and can look at parts to work to defeat the illness.
Reply
Kamala
| #
Norman,
the whole virus genom in the genom databank is a hypothetical computer model of a hypothetical virus. I dont understand why you cannot understand 🙂
In order to prove that a pink horn that you found belongs to a unicorn, you need to have the unicorn. Think about it.
Norman
| #
Kamala
Do you have any evidence to support your point or is it just your opinion. If you have evidence the virus genome is a hypothetical computer model of the virus please let me see the source of your information. It does not correlate at all what I have read on the topic.
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Norman:
Did you find the virus (physical sample) or a link which could lead to THE virus and its DNA identification? That is the question. Please share your information or link.
Providing computer modelling based evidence alone is as good as you would claim that last night you visited Mars on foot. You certainly can show fantastic computer generated (Photoshop) pictures of Mars and that you being there. However, here we are asking for some scientific (physical and worldly) evidence.
Let us see if you or anyone else can provide such an evidence.
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
Your first link is interesting. Can you explain how they render “mock virus”?
And if they can RENDER a mock virus, why not the real thing?
Author says:
‘A preparation of a virus can’t get much more “purified” than this.’
But then shows an image that says:
‘Slices through tomographic RECONSTRUCTIONS of highly pleiomorphic SARS-cov2 virions’
Reconstruction?
Everywhere I do not see this virus isolated. It’s always in something biologic. Why can’t I see it alone in a dish?
Is the environment necessary for its survival? Could the environment determine how bad it gets? Is the environment causing whatever we are seeing?
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Zoe:
You are assuming that Norman is knowledgeable about science and/or virus. Unfortunately, he does not appear to be. He believes that computer generated pictures are the real thing.
That is why I am just asking him repeatedly to provide some reference showing the physical sample (partiles) of the virus assuming that he will understand the question. Let us hope he reads it correctly, understand it and respond to the question accordingly.
Norman
| #
Zoe Phin
Here is what the term “mock” means in the studies. It is either without the virus present or a non-virulent strain.
https://www.genscript.com/molecular-biology-glossary/10558/mock-infected
On the “reconstruction” that is still the virus they just move the specimen around to get a better view. In just a straight on Electron Microgram you can miss details. It is a well established science. They do have the normal Electron Microscope images in the article with other material. It seems difficult to isolate the virus. Did you read the process they used. But they did it.
https://www.aapm.org/meetings/99AM/pdf/2806-57576.pdf
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
Is there an image of an isolated virus sitting in a dish, i.e. not inside biology?
IBM showed a video of atoms dancing back in 2013 …
Virus bigger than atoms …
Tu comprende?
Norman
| #
Saeed Qureshi
You are correct. i am not certain what you are asking for. However I will link you here.
https://theconversation.com/i-study-viruses-how-our-team-isolated-the-new-coronavirus-to-fight-the-global-pandemic-133675
Isolating viruses is not easy, but it can be done. You see an electron microscope image of the virus here.
Here are some more. Not sure what you want but I consider this evidence and science. Maybe be more clear on what you are asking..
https://www.cdc.gov/sars/lab/images.html
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Norman:
I am glad you provided the links which I am aware of. Now here is confusion on your part which is understandable and forgivable because you most likely lack in depth knowledge and understanding of science/chemistry part, hence you are reading and accepting the statements in the literature on their face-value.
The statements made in the literature are dodgy (which has confused you and the most others) and this is what I described in my article above which started this discussion. Please re-consider reading the above, where I state
“The title of the article states “isolation of novel corona virus”, while the text describes it as “viral isolate”. These two terms are very different. Isolation of virus means extraction of virus in its purest form. On the other hand, viral isolate means – a culture/mixture/soup of various things with virus present as one of its components. An isolate is generally a mixture of known and unknown components. An analogy would be – molasses is an isolate of sugarcane or sugar but does not represent (pure) sugar. EVEN THE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IN CULTURE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT COMPARING IT WITH A PRIOR AND INDEPENDENTLY ISOLATED AND CHARACTERISED SARS-COV2 ITSELF. Therefore, the title of the publication and its claims regarding virus should be considered false and dodgy.”
“A true isolation or extraction of virus means obtaining a physical sample of pure virus (particles) in a test tube or vial.” And this is what is needed and is missing. Until and unless such a (physical) sample is not available, appropriately characterised, all claims in this regard, including existence of virus, its link to disease/pandemic, and the development of treatments including vaccine will remain scientifically invalid/false.
Please read the above article with this thought in mind, I am sure you will realize that indeed virus has never been isolated and identified and by extension it does not exist.
Hope this will help.
Reply
Norman
| #
Saeed Qureshi
I do not think your conclusion is good logic. YOU: ” I am sure you will realize that indeed virus has never been isolated and identified and by extension it does not exist.”
I do not see how that is a logical conclusion. They have plenty of evidence the virus does indeed exist within biological cultures. I am not sure why you think you have to isolate the virus (which has been done in the first link, you just did not accept the type of system they used to create the image) to prove it exists. Not following the logic.
In the article they describe how you can tell, by the genetic sequence, you have a novel virus by comparing it to known coronavirus sequences.
Maybe read this link. It will help explain to you why virus isolation is not done so much today. As a Chemist you could appreciate the advancement in determining genomes and sequences. They are more accurate than virus isolation. Anyway read this. I hope this will help.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3536207/
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Norman:
Thank you. However, I think I should stop here because your line of thinking is going away from the topic of discussion which is isolating, identifying and characterizing the virus.
Perhaps you are arguing for the sake of arguing not seeking information and knowledge. So I will wait till you provide a reference where virus has been isolated (physical sample) which is absolute essential to work with virus and its disease. At present, virus work is based on arbitrary standards and criteria. You have to get out the Photoshop pictures mindset of your Mars visit (as I explained above).
I wish you all the best.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Norman,
Don’t you believe it spreads from human to human?
Does this virus travel through the air?
Surely it can be isolated then, right?
Why have you only seen it inside living tissue?
Reply