Uncovering the Corona Fraud Part 25
When I began uncovering the fraud of virology, one of the biggest turning points was realizing how virologists have completely debased the word “isolation”
I used to think “viral isolation” meant something like bacterial culture—where a specific organism is separated and grown in pure form. That seemed obvious. But nothing could be further from the truth.
What I came to understand—thanks to the work of Stefan Lanka, the Perth Group, David Crowe, and others—is that in virology, “isolation” doesn’t mean separating one thing from everything else.
It means adding an unpurified sample taken from a host (assumed to contain a “virus”) to a cell culture made of animal, cancer, or human embryonic cells, suspended in a mixture of fetal calf serum, antibiotics, antifungals, synthetic nutrients, and other additives.
So instead of subtracting everything but the “virus,” virologists add the sample to an already-contaminated stew. They call this chaos “isolation.”
It’s the opposite of what that word actually means. And that linguistic trick is where the entire illusion begins.
This loose and inconsistent use of terminology has even been acknowledged by prominent virologist Vincent Racaniello. In his February 2021 blog post Understanding virus isolates, variants, and strains,
Racaniello candidly admitted that many terms in virology are “ill-defined,” with “no universally accepted definitions.” He explained that there is no definitive reference for these terms—“no ‘bible’ with the correct meanings”—and that their usage is often passed down from mentor to student, regardless of accuracy or consistency.
Despite this admission, Racaniello offered his own preferred definitions, acknowledging that some of his colleagues would “certainly disagree with some of my definitions.”
This raises an important question: if virologists do not adhere to the standard meanings of commonly understood terms, and if they cannot even agree among themselves on what these terms mean within their own field, how can the discipline be taken seriously—let alone communicated clearly to the public?
Among the terms Racaniello attempted to define was “viral isolate.” He described it as “the name for a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and propagated in culture.”
To illustrate, he described the process used to obtain the so-called “SARS-COV-2 isolates:”
“A small amount of fluid was inserted into their lungs, withdrawn, and placed on cells in culture. The virus in the fluid reproduced in the cells and voila, we had the first isolates of the virus.”
Racaniello emphasized that the term “virus isolate” is “very basic” and “implies nothing except that the virus was isolated from an infected host.” What this means is that the presumed “virus” is never purified or separated before culturing—it’s simply assumed to be there.
If the cultured cells begin to die, for any number of reasons, this is interpreted as proof that a “virus” was “isolated.”
This is not isolation in any meaningful or scientific sense. It’s a redefinition by assumption. And once you see through that semantic shell game, the entire house of cards begins to fall.
Thus, it is extremely important to understand that, without proper purification (removal of all contaminants, pollutants, host materials, etc.) and true isolation (separation from everything else) of the presumed “virus” before any cell culture experiment, it is impossible to scientifically demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship supporting the “viral” hypothesis.
Without a valid independent variable—the supposed cause—there is nothing to vary or manipulate in order to observe an effect. As a result, the scientific method cannot be properly applied, leaving virology standing on a foundation of pseudoscience built upon quicksand.
Knowing this, it was incredibly rewarding for me to come across the brilliant work of Christine Massey in July 2020.
Upon reading about her Freedom of Information (FOI) requests seeking records from various health organizations and institutions describing the actual isolation of a “SARS-COV-2 virus” from any diseased patient, I immediately recognized the significance of her work.
Christine wasn’t looking for the usual virological ring-around that relies on distorted uses of colloquial terms—she was challenging these organizations to produce records showing the proper purification and isolation of the assumed “viral” particles prior to any cell culture experiments.
In her own words, Christine requested evidence that the presumed “viral” particles were “isolated from a sample from a diseased patient (where the sample was not first mixed with another source of genetic material, i.e. monkey kidney cells, lung cells from a lung cancer patient, fetal bovine serum…).”
She clearly understood the linguistic sleight of hand that had been perpetuated on the public, clarifying that she was “using ‘isolation’ in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else.”
Christine was not requesting records where “isolation of SARS-CoV-2” referred merely to culturing something, performing an amplification test (i.e., PCR), or sequencing something without first demonstrating actual purification and separation.
Importantly, Christine’s requests were not limited to records of isolation performed or authored by the respective institutions. Rather, she welcomed any records of isolation conducted by anyone, anywhere in the world.
She now has well over 200 such FOI requests—and not a single institution has been able to meet her challenge.
While detractors claim that what Christine is asking falls outside the scope of virology and is not how the work is typically done, those who are intellectually honest recognize that her request is simply a call for the proper application of the scientific method.
By repeatedly failing to produce valid scientific evidence to support virology’s foundational claims, these so-called “scientific” organizations have revealed themselves to be engaged in a pseudoscientific masquerade.
They rely on semantic games and procedural tricks, hoping the public won’t notice. But Christine is making sure the spotlight stays on them—and on their ongoing failure to validate virology through legitimate scientific means.
When I discovered Christine’s work in late July 2020, I was in awe of her efforts and deeply inspired by her courage. Her FOI requests have been invaluable in the fight against virology, and I’m grateful for her unwavering persistence in exposing the fraudulent methods virologists have used to mislead the public.
Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of getting to know Christine, and I’m honored to call her both a friend and a fellow warrior in this battle.
See more here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
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.