Corona: The comprehensible and verifiable refutation of the virus allegations

Corona: The comprehensible and verifiable refutation of the virus allegations

translated by Corona Investigative


By Jorg Berg

Many of the doctors and scientists even those who are now critical of Corona still assume that virus isolates do exist and that they have been properly documented according to the scientific rules of the art. There are repeated references to studies that allegedly have the virus isolate, such as this study from the CDC in the USA: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States (1). That this circumstance may be presupposed however under no circumstances, is pointed out in this article and at the same time a comprehensible and examinable refutation of the virus assertions is presented. 


In order to understand why the "science" of virology was maintained despite the fact that it had already disproved itself in 1951, the historical processes will be explained here.

How did it come to the claim that viruses exist and for what purpose?

In order to answer this question, we will go far back in history, more than 100 years, in principle to the time of the work of Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur, whereby we will concentrate on the latter. 

When Louis Pasteur postulated the existence of viruses, there was neither a basis for it, nor did one have suitable tools (electron microscope) to depict structures of such minute dimensions as are suspected for viruses.

Since Louis Pasteur could not provide an explanation for the cause of the illness of his "patients" and bacteria were out of the question, he postulated structures to which he gave the term "virus". 

All of this was based on experiments that are very questionable from today's point of view and have nothing to do with science. 

Princeton University published the study of his laboratory records, which, on reading them, must lead to the conclusion that Louis Pasteur had lied, cheated and manipulated on a massive scale at the time. (2)

In other words, all his claims, on which, among other things, the vaccination industry relies, must be regarded as completely worthless, since he proceeded in a highly unscientific manner. 

Until 1951/52, virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme that both directly exerts its toxic effect and multiplies and spreads in the body, and can also be transmitted between humans and animals.

Medicine and science abandoned this idea in 1951, because neither the representation of the suspected viruses by electron microscope nor the performance of the necessary control experiments ever wanted to succeed.

One had to admit that even from the decay of perfectly healthy animals, organs and tissues identical remnants emerge to which the name "virus" had originally been given. 

Basically, virology had thus disproved itself and pulverized its basis.

Please remember this important historical event very well, because it illustrates in an exemplary way how one could actually get on the wrong track by conducting control experiments in order to be able to steer research in more promising directions in the future.

These are exactly the same kind of control experiments that are currently again being disregarded, even though the responsible persons in the government and the Federal Ministry of Health as well as dozens of virologists in responsible positions have been explicitly pointed out. 

It is now up to you to decide to what extent you attach importance to the performance of control experiments.

The following reading is highly recommended to study this historical aspect:

Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology (Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung), reprint 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999 (3).

Here it is shown that until 1953 every virologist and the scientific community was aware and aware that all components that had been interpreted as virus particles until then turned out to be residues of dead tissue and cells in control experiments.


In 1953 a new dogma appeared on the scene, decisively pushed by the wife of the later Nobel Prize winner Crick, who knew how to depict a double helix. Her drawing was published in the famous scientific magazine "Nature" as a supposedly scientifically elaborated model of the suspected hereditary substance and this alleged alpha helix also became an icon of American global pseudo-science. 

Silently and very quietly, this was completely disproved by basic research, thereby DISMISSING THE TOTAL VIROLOGY INDIRECTLY, without the public ever having become aware of it until today.

All genetic ideas were completely and comprehensively refuted in the year 2000, the date of publication of the contradictory data of the so-called Human Genome Project - the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been decoded (although more than half had to be freely invented)!

In an article by Zeit.de under the heading "Genetics: Genome in Dissolution" (4) this was analyzed very nicely. It is summarized that the "genome" is subject to constant changes, therefore it cannot be a "genome" in the actual sense and the modifications in the sense of disease-causing genes are a misinterpretation.

In other words, what was usually thought of as "pathological genes" was neither sick nor healthy, but was caused by a variety of factors, be it by consciousness, (environmental) factors, or other resulting changes, without pathological value per se.

This new virus idea (which, as just described, was disproved by basic research in 2000), according to which the effective, virulent factor of a virus is not a disease poison, as previously assumed (until 1951), but a dangerous genetic substance that kills cells, humans, animals and plants, was popularized together with the new gene hypothesis. 

Instead of viruses as poisonous proteins, from 1954 onwards viruses were issued as a genetic strand of diseased genes, which have the potential to make the body sick, but above all to mutate constantly. On the one hand to suddenly emerge (mutation) from a harmless form in this way, but on the other hand also to render any vaccine ineffective more or less quickly. But sometimes - as for example in 2009, when 93 % of the vaccinable population rejected the highly toxic swine flu vaccination with nanoparticles as so-called "potentiators" - they actually, factually and practically disappeared from the media overnight, as if dictated by an invisible magic hand. 

But since then they have not mutated back into their dangerous form. We have witnessed a biological miracle that is unique to date: in just one night, all swine flu viruses mutated simultaneously into a harmless and invisible version, because they were never sighted again - despite billions invested in their testing procedures and, of course, in the vaccine ... of which 31.62 of the 34 million vaccine doses alone in Germany were destroyed in a waste-to-energy plant. 

...


Thus, from the forced logic of the disease toxin (lat. virus) cell theory, elevated to a dogma by Rudolf Virchow in 1858 (5), the following was derived:

  • First the idea of undefined viruses,
  • then the idea of pathogenic bacteria,
  • then the bacterial toxins, 
  • then the toxin viruses 

until the abandonment of this idea in 1952.

From 1953 on, Virchow's idea of a disease poison became the idea of genetic viruses (which has already been disproved).


To understand why even the often cited CDC study claiming a virus isolate is unable to prove exactly that, we must turn to the origin of the corona panic.


This is the study mentioned at the beginning of the article with the title:

"Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

We will go into these in more detail later.


It is important to realise that the exclusive basis on which this US study (6) is based already contains no evidence of a novel and disease-causing virus - quite the contrary. If you read the study more closely, you will find clear evidence that no virus was sought and no virus was found. Typical, very short snippets of so-called genetic material were added together only in thought to form a complete, very long gene strand, which does not exist in reality. 

This fact alone means that all other publications, whether from the USA, England, Germany, France, Korea, Canada and Co. are no proof of a disease-causing virus. For all these are also based on the assumption of the first sequence suggestions of a genome which the Chinese have given.

The publication by Fan Wu et al, in Nature, Vol 579 of 3.2.2020 (7), in which the genome (complete genome strand) of SARS-CoV-2 was presented for the first time and advanced to the template of all further alignments, showed that the entire RNA obtained from a bronchial lavage (BALF) of a patient had clearly been used without prior isolation or enrichment of viral structures or nucleic acids.

In this publication Prof. Zhang describes how he calculates a genome of 29,803 nucleotides from short gene segments with a length of only 21 and 25 nucleotides (these are the default parameters in the alignment programs used, Megahit and Trinity) using a given sequence of a genome (harmless bat corona virus) in seven different, very complex methods, including statistical methods.

This RNA was then converted into cDNA and molecules with a length of just 150 nucleotides were sequenced to construct the complete genome of approx. 30,000 nucleotides.

He assumes - without naming this explicitly - that the short sequences from which he adds up the sequence proposal of the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are viral in nature because he excludes longer sequences, which result from the overlapping (= contigs) of the short 21 and 25 pieces and have the similarity to human sequences, from later addition to the viral genome.

Put simply, this means:

Since the human sequences "known" to us in the mixture of genetic material have been deducted/removed, the remaining sequences, born out of virological compulsive thinking (which was crowned in 1954 by the Nobel Prize award to John Franklin Enders for speculation), are assumed to be of viral nature.

Now comes the essential and elementary hint!

Prof. Zhang and all the others have overlooked the fact that in the bronchial lavage obtained, known and unknown microbes of all kinds and their RNA remnants can also be found.

95 % of the observed microbes are visible but cannot be cultivated, so their RNA and DNA sequences are not known. Because even cell cultures (e.g. Vero E6 cells) are never free of microbes and countless impurities of any kind, there is an absolute obligation to isolate the suspected virus and to extract its own nucleic acid (in this case RNA) in pure form!

It is very likely that the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is partly made up of such short gene sequences (as just described), which is why it is possible to test people "positive" from time to time (if there is enough organic material and the sample was not taken from the -healthy - parotid gland) and why PCR experts say that every person will test "positive" if only the number of cycles of PCR is increased to over 40.

Similarly, people are automatically tested positive by the test if tested by the swab,

a.) too many mucous membranes are damaged

b.) it leads to bleeding,

c.) in the nasal cavity, the very sensitive olfactory bulb, a part of the brain, is mechanically damaged or

d.) simply a very large sample volume is taken, 

because in the body, even in every natural body of water and in all seas, an amazingly intensive build-up and breakdown of nucleic acids of all kinds is constantly taking place. Among them there are always those from which the only apparent genetic strand of the virus was constructed. In the PCR virus test, only very short nucleic acids are detected which are claimed to be part of a virus.

We explain this astonishing fact, which completely disproves the test, by the fact that Prof. Zhang was able to calculate the entire genome from purely human material (which has never been done before by anyone who obtained the necessary RNA sequences directly from cell cultures) because a much higher sequence diversity can be found in humans and their microbes - especially in disease - than in the relatively sterile cell cultures.

It also illustrates that so far nobody has been able to repeat the result of Prof. Zhang's decisive "alignment", except by purely synthetic means and by circular reasoning the Swiss Institute of Virology and Immunology (IVI) under Prof. Thiel, who synthetically converted Prof. Zhang's sequence proposal into DNA and therefore - until recently only negligently - believed to be working with the genome of a virus. As I said, a circular reasoning! (Our readers know why we: "until recently only negligently write").

Prof. Zhang does not describe control experiments, which are a prerequisite in science (8) in order to be allowed to call a statement "scientific". These control experiments, which also result from the laws of thought and logic that are constitutive for science - to exclude the obvious, namely that from the body's own short gene sequences and those of the numerous known and above all unknown microbes that colonise humans - have not been carried out to date.

The Chinese virologists did not conduct control experiments to rule out, 

  • that even with human/microbial RNA from a lung lavage of a healthy person, 
  • of a person with another lung disease, 
  • of a person who has been tested SARS-CoV-2 negative,
  • or from such RNA from reserve samples from the time when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still unknown

exactly the same addition of a virus genome from short RNA fragments is possible!

A method like the alignment here, to calculate a theoretically long one from very short gene sequences, which is not backed up by control experiments, cannot be called scientific. Here, scientificity is given, but it is not adhered to in an obvious, comprehensible and verifiable way.

 a.) In the alignment process, no one has yet verified that the gene sequences from which the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome was calculated do not originate from gene sequences derived from the metabolism of microbes that colonize humans and cell cultures.

b.) Only about 5 % of the existing microbes are genetically identified, which makes it necessary to carry out control experiments immediately, because it is obvious that the genome of the virus was calculated completely or partially from their unknown sequences in a multi-step "alignment".

c.) It has been known for a long time that the enzymes that produce gene sequences, not only by the well-known mechanism of "template switching", constantly produce new gene sequences that cannot be recorded in any database and that the enzymes that produce RNA gene sequences do so even without gene templates. This means that new gene sequences are constantly being created that could not be captured by previous methods. This alone results in the obligation to carry out control experiments immediately, because it is obvious that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was constructed entirely or partially by computer from such unspecific sequences.

Prof. Zhang explicitly mentions in this publication that he did not follow the rules for proving the existence of a virus, the Koch's postulates. Also not the first postulate, the isolation of the virus.

Prof. Zhang explicitly mentions that there is only a correlation between the mathematical "proof" of this virus and an actual pneumonia, but no proof that his "discovery" is causal for this disease.


A simple, but respectable example which helps laymen to understand how this can be visualised. 

Please look at the following picture:

The entire RNA obtained from a patient's bronchial lavage (BALF) was used to construct a whole duck (right picture) from this soup of genetic material many short sequence sections (small Lego bricks left picture). All these small sequence sections (small Lego bricks left picture) have nothing to do with each other. Without a construction plan, an alignment, nobody could do anything with all these small short sequence sections (except creative children, the young at heart and especially creative people looking for the proof of an idea). 

Therefore, the virologists of the CCDC used an alignment based on "corona viruses" from bats. The algorithm now tries to construct a new duck, i.e. to create a model, from these many unconnected short sequences (Lego bricks). This is a purely intellectual construct, it is not a real structure and has never been isolated as an intact and complete genome (the entire genome strand of SARS-CoV-2 is almost 30,000 nucleotides long)! 

Structures shown in EM images and published as images of viruses have never been biochemically characterized. No nucleic acid has ever been extracted and determined from such particles. These particles are published only as viruses, with the information that the same particles of this type are produced each time "uninfected" cell cultures are treated in the same way as cell cultures defined as "infected". Non-virologists refer to these particles as e.g. phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, transport vesicles and in cross section as villi etc. pp.


Supplemental analysis of the CDC study from the USA, which is often claimed as proof of virus isolation.

Right at the beginning the study with the title "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States" says:

"A novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been identified as the source of a pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 (1,2).

The following source is referenced here:

"A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019" (9)

In the first authoritative publication by the authors of CCDC (A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019) on the results of their research, no accumulation of cases of atypical pneumonia ("patient with pneumonia of unknown cause") is reported. They report that the patients found can be grouped into a "cluster", a group with common characteristics. The common characteristic was the more or less frequent visit of a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan. How tiny the group of patients with atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC took swabs and fluids of the lower respiratory tract from only four patients in order to search for known and unknown pathogens.

In this study, which is considered to be authoritative, it says under Discussion: 

"our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates"

Thus it is clearly proven that this study can at no time be a proof for a novel virus. The authors thus explicitly state that they have not isolated and determined any virus, otherwise they would have fulfilled the first of the four Koch's postulate!


What does this mean at this time? 

The original source, which gives this study as a reference, cannot provide evidence of a disease-causing virus.

When preliminary compilations of sequences appeared on the Internet on 10.1. and 12.1.2020 , which were subsequently modified and republished on 24.1.2020 (10) and 3.2.2020 (11), this was the result of the first two attempts to identify the as yet unknown virus. The virologists of the CCDC had theoretically assembled the sequences of short gene fragments into a possible genetic strand using computer programs.


The samples used to isolate the putative virus are pure assumptions based on a model in which the Chinese have spread a genome suggestion that was created by an alignment.


In the "Method" section "Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation" this is documented as follows:

"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% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). 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 5% 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 (9,10).

When CPEs 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% confluent 24-well plate."

  1. None of the studies performs a truly robust negative control to ensure that the "potentially infectious agent" or those short gene sequences from which the genetic strand of the claimed virus is later constructed are not already present in the starting material, the monkey kidney cells and the chemicals and nutrient solutions used. Both the introduced agents themselves, or these in interaction with the cell material, or this alone, or everything together with the isolate from the diseased tissue could be responsible for the observed changes, which are interpreted as viral and for the release of short gene sequences, from which the virus genome is later constructed by computation.
  2. Virologists kill tissue unnoticed in the laboratory Virologists do not use the word "isolation" in the true sense of the word isolation and become suspiciously nervous when asked about it. They understand "isolation" to mean the creation of an effect in the laboratory, which they also call a) Infection b) Evidence of the presence of a virus c) proof of its propagation d) Evidence for the destructive power of the assumed virus. In reality they kill tissue unnoticed and unconsciously and Cells in the laboratory - by starvation and poisoning. This effect is known as the cytopathic effect
  3. The alleged cultivation of the virus This fusion is called giant cell formation and is called the "cytopathic effect". This result of many violent and insane steps is interpreted as central proof of the "presence, isolation, reproduction etc." of the suspected virus. Those involved then claim that they have succeeded in cultivating the virus.
  4. The virologists used in the publication 10 % fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antifungals and 2× amphotericin B. This causes the effect described in points 2 and 3. This is also known among other things in the expert opinion* within the measles virus process (12).
  5. Also in the publication by Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42(1):75-85 it is described that the cytopathic effect is not measles-specific, but is caused by other factors. This is stated in the publication on p.80: „cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called ‚foamy agents‘, which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys“

    This sentence is remarkable, since it points to the unspecificity of exactly those pathological changes that served as the starting point for the optical evidence of an infection in the first publication by Enders & Peebles.
  6. Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung (Early History of Virology), reprint 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999 (13)

    This reading is so important because it shows how important control experiments are in order to recognize that one was wrong. It shows that until 1953 it was clear and known to every virologist and the scientific community that all components that had been interpreted as components of viruses until then, turned out to be components of dead tissues and cells through control experiments. This is why it is so important to keep insisting on the lack of control experiments in the publications presented. Exactly these control experiments are missing in the above mentioned publication from the USA!   For this reason alone, these and all other publications may not be presented as scientific. Since there is no single publication in the case of the so-called corona virus that fulfills the criterion "scientific", but was clearly unscientific, all corona measures break down legally - like a house of cards. The Infection Protection Act (IfSG), with which all corona measures in Germany are legitimized, clearly demands in § 1 the scientific character of all measures and all participants. Since the scientific approach required by the law is clearly not given in Corona, but clearly violated, all Corona measures are illegal and the resulting damages can be sued with exactly this justification (14). 
  7. For the mere reason that these mandatory control experiments were not carried out, this study must be classified as unscientific and is not worth the paper it was written on. See the rules for scientific work (lege artis) that have been bindingly codified by the DFG (German Research Foundation) since 1998 (15) and signed by all university rectors.


Summary

  1. The genetic strand of SARS-CoV-2 is only one model, which was created by an alignment. In the publication of Fan Wu et al, in Nature, Vol 579 of 3.2.2020 (16), in which the genome (complete genetic strand) of SARS-CoV-2 was presented for the first time, it became the template for all further alignments of all other virologists and biochemists.
  2. The genome (genetic strand) of SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, only the entire RNA obtained from a bronchial lavage (BALF) of a patient has been used.
  3. No control experiments were performed to exclude that the gene sequences are tissue-own structures. Examples of this can be found in the following article: . Epidemic authority confirmed: Neither virus-existence research nor control experiments performed read . These questions make every virologist nervous read . The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses read
  4. Virology had already given up in 1951, after those responsible had carried out the necessary control experiments (17).
  5. All genetic ideas were completely and comprehensively refuted in 2000, the year of the publication of the contradictory data of the so-called Human Genome Project, the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been read although more than half had to be invented (18).
  6. The cytopathic effect is NOT! Virus specific! *(see expert opinion 3- cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not maservirus-specific)
  7. The rules that have been bindingly codified for scientific work (lege artis) by the German Research Foundation (DFG) since 1998 and signed by all university rectors have not been and are still not complied with.
  8. Many doctors and scientists are subject to the same error. They do not realize that the basis of these publications already did not provide proof and that the necessary control experiments were missing.  
  9. Louis Pasteur, who massively propagated the virus theory, was convicted of science fraud (19).

* Cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not specific for measles viruses

Author: Laboratory Manager of an independent laboratory in Germany

Result of the laboratory:

"Depending on the added non-viral and non-infectious substances, changes in cell morphology could be observed at different points in time, which since 1954 has been equated with the "isolation" of the "measles virus". Especially after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin/streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficient conditions (1% FCS), changes in cell morphology were observed that were microscopically identical to the formation of syncytia described by the measles virus


Table 1: Chemicals, solutions and cell culture media used


The investigations clearly showed that the formation of syncytia is not specific for a measles infection. Thus, the forgotten observations of both Enders&Peebles and Bech&von Magnus were confirmed and the assumption that Enders&Peebles and successors had used this technique to prove the existence of a virus was refuted

Further information and test setup can be found in the Further information and test setup can be found in the Wissenschaftsplus Magazine 2017 4th Edition (20).




Translated, adapted & reblogged Version - Original here


Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal



References:

(1) Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

(2) The Private Science of Louis Pasteur

(3) Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung, Sonderdruck 125, 89 Seiten, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999. (German only at the moment)

(4) Genetics: Genome in Dissolution

(5) Virchow - A strategist of power

(6) see 1

(7) A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

(8) Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice

(9) "A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019"

(10) see 9

(11) see 7

(12) The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses

(13) Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung (Early History of Virology)

(14) Gigantic lawsuit against Prof. Christian Drosten & associates

(15) see 8

(16) see 6

(17) see 13

(18) see 4

(19) see 2

(20) Die 6 Ausgaben des Jahres 2017 (PDF-Version) (The 6 issues of the year 2017 (PDF version))