DR. SAM BAILEY, who runs a popular Youtube channel, joins those who say the existence of the COVID-19 virus has not been proven in a lab. Listen to her explanation at 14:14 in this video.

The scam behind this artificial pandemic is obviously colossally greater if there is no new, scientifically-verified, distinct virus. I have offered conflicting views on this important issue. I apologize if this is confusing to readers.

Bailey and researchers working with her have contacted scientists who claim to have isolated the virus and they have admitted, she said, they did not purify their samples. “None of the authors [contacted] claimed that they had a purified sample.” Also, none have claimed a $250,000 prize for anyone who has isolated it.

Given that the disease does not meet rigorous lab standards, treatments cannot be generalized either, Bailey said, even though some treatments have been helpful in individual cases of recent respiratory disease.

Dr. Pam Popper, who is opposed to the lockdowns, emphatically insists that the virus has been purified and isolated. She is dismissive of those who say it hasn’t been, accusing them of gullibility. Journalist Jon Rappoport and physician Tom Cowan are also among those who say it has not been proven scientifically.

Journalist David Crowe of The Infectious Myth wrote at length on the issue last year before he died suddenly of cancer. He left a long manuscript on his studies of COVID-19, in which he wrote:

Scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with influenza or pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups of scientists was honest enough to admit this:

“we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood” [2] But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41 cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, “41 patients… confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV.”

Another paper quietly admitted that: “our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates” [1] Koch’s postulates, first stated by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the late 1800s, are simple logic, and can be stated as:

Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness.

Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen.

Verify that the same illness is produced.

Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it really is creating the illness.

Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, “It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases”. That was a long time ago, but the problem continues. And Rivers’ guidance was considered important enough to be cited by papers claiming (falsely) that Koch’s Postulates had been met during the SARS era (2003). None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted to purify the virus. And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is ‘isolation’)

Crowe’s research was informed by his years of studying other alleged viruses, including HIV-AIDS.

— Comments —

Joshua writes:

It would seem that the most potent argument against the claimed existence of the “SARS-COV2 virtual virus” is that the “isolation” itself is so vigorously debated. Thus, imagine any other “thing” being so apparently numerous globally (because “science” says so) and yet the very existence of this “thing” being a matter of contentious scientific debate?

If the “novel virus” was real then there would be NO DOUBT at all about it because it is reported to be nearly everywhere all across the globe infecting MILLIONS. Yet, the scientific debate rages on while “science” itself claims to possess the skill set necessary to easily squash such a controversial dilemma and simply does not do it. This suggests, quite clearly, that “science” either cannot “isolate” “SARS-COV2” because a lack of technical know-how or that the “novel virus” only exists virtually.

Laura writes:

Good points!

Whoever heard of a pandemic that requires this abstruse debate about microscopic evidence?

It shouldn’t depend on microscopic evidence. It should be visible. How about bodies in the street; overpacked morgues; dozens of missing friends and relatives, instead of unemployed healthcare workers, dancing nurses, inhuman restrictions?

This scam is so big people can’t see it.

Please follow and like us: