"Sars-Cov-2" Does Not Exist (Part 2): Why Chinese Researchers NEVER Isolated the Virus
The malevolents behind the COVID scam just aren't giving up. They recently tried to trigger another bout of COVID paranoia by hyping the emergence of two alleged new variants, “Pirola” and “Eris”. As with the Monkeypox farce (an ill-fated and short-lived attempt by the globalists to emulate the HIV-AIDS hysteria of the early 1980s), the Pirola-Eris ruse has had little impact. The world has been so heavily bombarded with COVID hysteria that, apart from the occasional mask-wearing die-hard, most people are by now either indifferent or somewhere along the spectrum of realizing the official COVID story was a complete lie.
But the danger to our freedoms is by no means over. On June 5, 2023, the WHO announced it would embrace the European Union digital COVID-19 certification system "to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics."
The WHO and EU, of course, don't give a damn about facilitating "global mobility" and protecting citizens. As we saw with the COVID campaign, the purpose of pre-orchestrated pandemics is to impede global mobility and harm citizens physically and psychologically with dangerous drugs and draconian restrictions on basic liberties. This is being done in the name of global depopulation, a long-held obsession of the billionaire parasite class, the megalomaniacal psychopaths who believe the rest of us are "useless eaters" in need of a "great culling".
So now is a good time to remind the world that there is no such thing as Sars-Cov-2, the novel Wuhan virus that allegedly causes "COVID-19". The world does not need a "digital COVID-19 certification system" because there is no such thing as "COVID-19".
Sars-Cov-2 has never been isolated by anything even remotely resembling good science.
COVID-19 was simply the regular flu, cold and pneumonia re-branded.
In this article, I dismantled the claim by Australia's bombastic Doherty Institute that it was the first entity outside of China to isolate Sars-Cov-2. As I explained, the Doherty researchers inadvertently admit in the paper they did no such thing. They could not find anything that looked like a so-called "coronavirus" - instead they had to create one by adding a protein-digesting enzyme (trypsin) to the patient sample they were customizing analyzing. This had the effect of creating ragged edges in cellular non-viral particles, which the researchers promptly declared to be the crown-like spikes of "coronavirus" virions.
What a bald-faced fraud.
Today, I'm going to dismantle the very first paper to appear in a major journal officially announcing the 'isolation' of the Sars-Cov-2 virus.
This was a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine on January 24, 2020, under the auspices of "the China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team". This team was assembled by the Chinese CDC, which of course is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party - a wonderful group of humanitarians known for organ harvesting, and kidnapping and disappearing dissenters.
The NEJM paper is pure garbage, a poorly contrived piece of rot that should never have passed peer review. To be honest, I don't believe the paper was subject to anything resembling a true peer review process. If it was, the NEJM reviewers were asleep on the job, because the paper contains numerous glaring anomalies that demand clarification.
Even upon first reading (I tend to read questionable or controversial papers several times over), it is clear this is a paper with major flaws. For it to appear in a so-called 'prestigious' journal like the NEJM is a lucid demonstration of what a sick joke the world of science has become.
The paper is so problematic that I recently wrote to the researchers asking them to clarify several discrepancies. That in itself was a revealing exercise.
It is standard practice for all published papers to list a "corresponding author" along with their email address. This is the person on the author list responsible for communicating with the journal editor during the submission/publication process and the point of contact for readers after publication. If you are a researcher, journalist or curious member of the public, this is the person you write to for more information or to clarify something about the study that doesn't make sense to you.
Curiously, the NEJM paper does not list a corresponding author. Instead, three authors are listed as points of contact for "reprint requests". In academic publishing, reprints are bulk reproductions of individual articles, used by researchers to generate publicity among audiences who don't subscribe to the journal in question (a major market for reprint requests are pharmaceutical companies, who order reprints of seemingly favorable studies for their sales reps to hand out to physicians).
So the China CDC researchers responsible for the NEJM paper evidently wanted maximum publicity for the paper, assigning not just one but three authors to handle reprint requests. But by failing to list even a single corresponding author, it seems they did not want to field any questions about the paper or its extremely questionable methodology.
This suspicion was confirmed recently when I twice emailed all three authors listed as reprint request contacts, and received no response to my questions about the paper's many discrepancies (more on that in a moment).
The World's Most Influential Journal Publishes the World's Biggest Load of COVID BS
The NEJM paper begins by claiming "a cluster of patients with pneumonia of unknown cause was linked to a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan, China."
China, as we all know, has a lot of people. Wuhan itself contains over 11 million people - more than the population of Melbourne and Sydney combined. So if there really was an outbreak of a "novel" virus in this heavily populated country, government-funded researchers should have had plenty of patients allegedly presenting with this novel virus to examine.
But the NEJM paper features a grand total of - wait for it - three patients and four lower respiratory tract samples. The NEJM paper claims three adult patients with severe pneumonia were admitted to an unnamed hospital in Wuhan on December 27, 2019. One of the female patients, it is claimed, worked in the Huanan Seafood Market while another visited the market regularly. No mention was made of whether the remaining patient had any exposure to the market.
An initial reading of the NEJM paper gives the impression that the four lower respiratory tract samples mentioned by the researchers were collected from the three aforementioned patients. But further reading of the paper leaves one wondering just who supplied the samples.
The paper refers to the three discussed pneumonia patients as "Patient 1", "Patient 2" and “Patient 3". Yet no attempt is made in the paper to link the tested samples to any of the three. For example, we would expect the researchers to write things like:
"Samples were obtained from Patients 1, 2 and 3 and tested for ..."
"Samples from Patients 1 and 3 tested positive, while no virus was detected in the sample from Patient 2..."
But they write no such thing.
This is very smelly, and begs the obvious question: Why are the symptoms and sequelae of the three pneumonia patients discussed, if their samples were not the ones used to 'isolate' the virus?
The waters are muddied further by two papers published in the China CDC Weekly shortly before the NEJM paper appeared, and another in Nature shortly afterwards. To stop this article from blowing out in length, I'll briefly point out that these articles give different dates and conflicting information about who the virus was allegedly isolated from.
This paper - submitted January 20, 2020, accepted January 21, 2020, published January 22, 2020 - offers different dates to the NEJM paper, claiming that on December 29, 2019, a hospital in Wuhan admitted four individuals with pneumonia and that all four had worked in the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
The other China CDC paper has been pulled from the Internet but can still be found at archive websites.
That paper was submitted January 19, 2020 and accepted for publication the very next day on January 20, 2020. It too claimed that on January 3, 2020, the first complete genome of 2019-nCoV was identified in samples of lung fluid - but from a single patient, of whom we are told absolutely nothing except that he/she was from Wuhan.
To top it off, on February 3, 2020, Nature published online yet another paper by Chinese researchers, this time describing a patient from whom Sars-Cov-2 was allegedly isolated. He was reportedly a 41-year male old hospitalized in the Central Hospital of Wuhan on December 26, 2019. The three patients in the NEJM paper, none of whom were 41 years old, allegedly presented to hospital on December 27, 2019.
The researchers claim it is from this patient that they "identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’)."
So who were the patients described in the NEJM paper, and why were they being discussed as if their samples provided the first 'isolate' of Sars-Cov-2, when a subsequent Nature paper claims it was someone else entirely?
What we have right from the beginning of the COVID charade is a jumbled mess of conflicting dates and stories coming from suspicious Chinese papers with remarkably swift publishing timelines.
Apologists for these researchers might proffer that this was a result of the chaotic 'emergency' scenario taking place, but to assume an emergency scenario from a handful of pneumonia cases in a country of 1.5 billion people is patently absurd. For reasons that should become obvious, I believe the aforementioned discrepancies were the inevitable contradictions that arise when people try to propagate a deliberate and complicated lie.
Now let's return to the NEJM paper.
Much Ado About Nothing
The NEJM paper claims the analyzed patient samples were extracted from the mystery patients via bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid, which is where researchers anesthetize you, stick a fiber-optic bronchoscope down your pie hole, thread it into your lower lungs, squirt some saline solution into the area, then retrieve that solution via suction or syringe. This mixture is then tested.
Needless to say, it's an invasive procedure, and its not unreasonable to assume any novel illness prompting its use features some especially severe or mystifying properties.
Yet when the researchers describe the three patients allegedly presenting to hospital with "severe" pneumonia in Wuhan on 27 December 2019, we see nothing unusual about their symptoms at all.
Patient 1 was a 49-year-old woman who reported fever (temperature, 37°-38°C) and cough with chest discomfort. Four days after the onset of her illness, her cough and chest discomfort worsened, but her fever was reduced. A diagnosis of pneumonia was based on CT scan. She was discharged from hospital on 16 January 2020. In other words, she had an unpleasant but otherwise unremarkable bout of pneumonia and then recovered - just as hundreds of millions of people do each and every year.
Bizarrely, no symptoms whatsoever are described for 32-year-old Patient 3, but just like like Patient 1, he recovered and was discharged from hospital on 16 January 2020. Why he is even mentioned in this paper when researchers have nothing to share about his symptoms and sequelae remains a mystery.
While most people who suffer pneumonia will live and recover just fine, some will not be so lucky. Of the 450 million cases of pneumonia diagnosed annually, some 4.5 million people will die.
Most of those who die from pneumonia will be children or elderly folks, and most of those will be in developing countries, whose poverty, health and sanitation challenges are hardly a secret.
Which brings us to 61-year-old Patient 2. He initially reported fever and cough on December 20, 2019 and developed "respiratory distress" seven days after the onset of illness. No detail is given about the nature of this "respiratory distress" , which allegedly worsened over the next two days, at which time mechanical ventilation was started.
He died on 9 January 2020.
So two patients suffering pneumonia and treated non-invasively recovered just fine. The other was given intubation under dubious circumstances, and died.
And here's the real cracker: Despite this death allegedly being due to a "novel" virus of "unknown cause," and despite a specialist Chinese research crack squad being created to examine this allegedly novel virus, no biopsy specimens were taken from this deceased patient.
China: The country where they can harvest organs from political prisoners, but well-funded, specialist researchers can't insert a biopsy needle into a dead guy in the face of a 'novel' and 'deadly' virus outbreak?
Give me a break.
The reality is that these were not 'COVID' patients; they were among the hundreds of millions of people presenting annually with atypical pneumonia.
How CCP-Controlled Researchers Isolated a Virus that Doesn't Exist
After describing three patients who they probably didn't isolate anything from, the CCDC researchers then proceed to tell us how they isolated Sars-Cov-2 from patients they refuse to describe. These were the patient/s who allegedly furnished the three bronchoalveolar-lavage samples from Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital on December 30, 2019.
To try and give this utter farce an air of scientific credibility, the Chinese researchers claim in the NEJM paper that they obtained seven bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid specimens from patients in Beijing hospitals with pneumonia of "known cause" to serve as control samples. More on that later.
As I explained in my article dissecting the Doherty Institute paper, 'viral isolation' relies on three key acts of quackery:
Viral cell culturing
Alleged demonstration of a "cytopathic effect"
Genome sequencing.
During all three of these intelligence-insulting charades, no physical virus is ever isolated.
It's worth reflecting at this point just what it means to isolate something. As a layperson with a healthy compliment of commonsense, you would reasonably expect that when researchers claim to "isolate" a virus, they do just that:
Physically isolate a virus.
Duh.
You would expect them to separate the virus from all the other goo and gunk in a patient sample, and place it in a medium where it can be maintained and used in experiments to study its alleged pathological effects (as is done with bacteria).
The way to determine the pathological effects of an alleged virus like Sars-Cov-2 is to administer it to animals or humans under controlled experimental conditions - to observe whether or not it does in fact cause a disease known as 'COVID'.
If the animals or humans given this alleged virus develop symptoms and sequelae typical of patients suffering 'COVID' - while control animals given an inert solution do not - then we know researchers are on to something.
However, if the so-called isolate, after administration to humans or animals, does pretty much nothing - as was observed in this experiment with monkeys by the Pfizer cartel - then we know we are not looking at a pathogenic virus but a non-entity.
Like I said, that is what a person carrying a healthy dose of commonsense would expect of virologists.
Virology, however, has absolutely nothing to do with commonsense nor sound science. It is an utter farce.
Again, researchers never physically isolate a virus. The patient sample is the so-called isolate!
Which is ridiculous, because a patient sample contains a whole lot more other than a potential virus. Mucus contains numerous components including mucins, glycoproteins, proteoglycans, lipids, proteins, and DNA. It can also contain pathogenic bacteria, fungi and trapped foreign matter such as dust, pollution particulates and allergens.
Virologists then take this patient sample, pretend to clean it up a bit by subjecting it to centrifugation, which is where they spin it around and around at really high speeds and separate some of the solid matter from the rest of the mix. They call the resultant mix "supernatant", a term that does nothing to change the fact it is still essentially a wad of goo, in this case lung fluid taken from pneumonia patients.
They then add this "supernatant" to a cell culture, which invariably contains other sources of RNA and DNA, like bovine fetal serum and the featured cell line.
This mixture of patient sample, culture medium, and experimental cell line is then allowed to sit for an extended period of time. Each day, while it sits, researchers take images of the mixture using an uber-powerful electron microscope.
If the researchers have cherry-picked the correct cell line, those cells will start to deform and become dysfunctional. This cell decay is taken as proof that there is a virus in the mix, and that this virus is attacking the cells, causing a "cytopathic effect".
It's a complete and utter wank. Just because cells begin to deteriorate when left to sit in an unnatural mix for an extended period of time does not mean there is an infectious, pathogenic and 'novel' microbe present.
It is not proof of disease; it is not proof of anything.
It’s like leaving a piece of bare metal outside in the rain, then exclaiming when it starts to rust, “look, it’s got a virus!”
No virus has been isolated, and no disease process in anything remotely resembling a mammalian creature has been established.
Pick and Choose Your Cell Lines to Get the Results You Are After
In the poorly-written NEJM paper, the "Methods" section states that the cell line used in the culture solution consisted of "human airway epithelial cells” obtained “from patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer and were confirmed to be special-pathogen-free by [next-generation sequencing]."
So they used airway cells from cancer patients instead of healthy people, and 'confirmed' they were pathogen-free by dubious computerized sequencing.
In the "Results" section, however, we further discover that they also had a go at viral isolation using "Vero E6" and "Huh-7" cell lines.
I discussed Vero cells in my previous article. To recap, they are kidney cells extracted from African green monkeys. They are commonly used cell lines in the viral cell culture charade.
The HuH-7 cell line was established in 1982, originally taken from a liver tumor in a 57-year-old Japanese male.
The China CDC researchers claim that after 96 hours, "cytopathic effects" were observed on human airway epithelial cells, while "No specific cytopathic effects were observed in the Vero E6 and Huh-7 cell lines until 6 days after inoculation."
That’s all well and good, but the mythical Sars-Cov-2 is allegedly a respiratory virus that infects healthy human lungs, so the obvious question here is why are researchers tooling around with monkey kidney cells and immortal tumour cell lines obtained from cancer patients?
The answer to that question is because these cell lines give researchers the results they are looking for.
Back in March 2005, researchers examined 30 different cell lines to see which ones would support in vitro replication of the original 1.0 version of "SARS-CoV". Thirteen of those cell lines were obtained from humans, and three of those human cell lines were derived from lung/airway tissue.
The researchers were able to detect "SARS-CoV" in only six cell lines: three African green monkey kidney cell lines (Vero, Vero E6, and MA104), a human colon epithelial line (CaCo-2), a pig kidney epithelial line [PK(15)], and mink lung epithelial cells (Mv 1 Lu). They then further admitted that SARS-CoV produced no visible cytopathic effect in the Caco-2, Mv 1 Lu, or PK(15) cells.
So of thirty cell lines, a 'cytopathic effect' of the original Sars-CoV could only be detected in three - and none of them were human cell lines.
Rather curious for a 'human' virus, don't you think?
When scientists from the US CDC claimed in March 2020 they had 'isolated' Sars-Cov-2, they attempted "to infect and replicate" it in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma lung cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells, and even "an available big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B)."
What did they find?
"No cytopathic effect was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells ... In contrast, both HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication and (human lung) A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection."
Despite claiming to have isolated a novel new virus that allegedly threatened the very existence of humankind, the CDC did not observe any 'cytopathic effect' in human cells. This novel 'zoonotic' virus that allegedly "jumped" on to humans did not show any notable replication in human lung cells, while the Chinese could only claim 'cytopathic effects' in immortal human liver and airway tumour cells - a questionable proxy for healthy human lung tissue.
Again, rather odd behavior for an alleged 'human' virus, isn't it?
This is why "viral isolation" experiments typically avoid using normal, healthy human cell lines. Those cell lines, quite simply, don't give the results the researchers are after.
I'd bet a large tray of cannoli that the Chinese CDC researchers also used other cell lines, and reported results only on the ones that produced the wankological "cytopathic effect".
As for the results obtained with Vero cells, experiments with actual living monkeys show they have no relationship with reality. When Pfizer researchers administered an ‘isolate’ of Sars-Cov-2 to vaxxxed and unvaxxxed monkeys, they “showed no clinical signs of significant disease."
This allegedly ‘deadly’ virus was given to our primate cousins - who bear much closer genetic similarities to us than a petri dish with bovine fetal serum, antibiotics, and tumour cells - and it did nothing.
This is the non-entity that was used to justify travel bans, house arrest schemes (lockdowns), dehumanizing mask mandates, gratuitous police brutality and the wide-scale destruction of small-to-medium businesses. Not to mention a global mass-drugging campaign built around toxic gene therapies…
Reclassifying Extracellular Vesicles as 'Viruses'
The researchers then took electron microscopy images of their utterly irrelevant culture mixes and claim they showed "2019-nCoV particles" with "quite distinctive spikes ... consistent with the Coronaviridae family."
Yeah, sure.
Take a look at the pictures below.
This first one, from the NEJM paper, is an image of cells allegedly infected with Sars-Cov-2 virus particles. The images show round, enclosed bodies with multiple round dots inside; those dots are allegedly Sars-Cov-2:
Here's an image from the Doherty Institute paper, also purporting to show Sars-Cov-2-infected cells:
Here's an image from Korean researchers, again purporting to show cells infected with Sars-Cov-2:
Problem is, those images look just like a type of extracellular vesicle known as exosomes.
Below is an image of exosomes - not virions - inside multivesicular bodies emanating from human hematopoietic stem cells (found in bone marrow), published by Sahoo et al in 2011, eight years before the Great COVID Con kicked off:
They all look alike, don't they? What researchers are claiming to be virions are probably just extracellular vesicles.
So what are extracellular vesicles?
"Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are lipid bilayer-enclosed entities containing proteins and nucleic acids that mediate intercellular communication, in both physiological and pathological conditions. EVs resemble enveloped viruses in both structural and functional aspects. In full analogy with viral biogenesis, some of these vesicles are generated inside cells and, once released into the extracellular milieu, are called ‘exosomes’. Others bud from the plasma membrane and are generally referred to as ‘microvesicles’."
"Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist." (Bold emphasis added)
-Giannesi et al, Department of Science, Roma Tre University, Italy, 2020.
Virologists can’t guarantee the difference between an extracellular vesicle and a virus, but not to worry: They just go ahead and claim the former is a virus any old how.
The Sequencing Scam
Having captured electron microscopy images of what strongly look to be extracellular vesicles, and passing them off as novel virions, the next step of the sham was to create a genome of this non-existent virus.
The researchers write:
"RNA extracted from bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid from the patients was used as a template to clone and sequence a genome using a combination of Illumina sequencing and nanopore sequencing." (Bold emphasis added)
So they took a bit of lung fluid and relentlessly tried to match bits of its DNA with that from pre-existing viruses. They claim that after performing over 20,000 viral reads from individual specimens, they came up with a sequence of overlapping DNA segments that showed more than 85% identity with "a bat SARS-like CoV (bat-SL-CoVZC45, MG772933.1) genome published previously."
There are two major problems with this.
The first is that, despite all their talk about fancy sequencing procedures, we already know they have not isolated a physical virus. They are describing a bunch of computerized chicanery that relentlessly mixed and matched short nucleotide sequences until they came up with an in silico 'genome' showing similarities to a previously detected bat virus.
And the section I've highlighted in bold above suggests they did this with the atypical pneumonia patient samples only. I wrote to the researchers to clarify whether the term "patients" also included the control subjects with pneumonia of known cause from Beijing hospitals, or only the atypical pneumonia patients from Wuhan that allegedly harbored the novel coronavirus.
I have received no response, despite emailing twice.
Their silence strongly suggests to me they did not perform the same procedures with the control samples in order to see if the same genome could be assembled from the Wuhan patient and Beijing control samples.
If so, the CCDC researchers employed the same "out of sight, out of mind" approach to control procedures as the shambolic Doherty Institute. In response to an enquiry by German engineer Marvin Haberland, the Institute admitted it did not conduct control sequencing when allegedly isolating Sars-Cov-2 for the first time outside of China. Instead, "Sequencing and de novo assembly was only performed on positive, infected material" (i.e. the sample obtained from a single patient who gave all signs of suffering pneumonia - and was successfully treated as such - yet was assumed to have Sars-Cov-2). (Bold emphasis added)
The charade gets even more ridiculous when the Chinese CDC researchers further claim in the NEJM paper, "positive results were also obtained with use of a real-time RT-PCR assay for RNA targeting to a consensus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase region of "pan betacoronavirus". But to get these "positive results" they had to use a cycle threshold higher than 34. At cycle thresholds of over 34, PCR 'positives' are in fact overwhelmingly false-positives and are not detecting infectious material.
So again, no isolated virus, just a meaningless positive obtained via anti-scientific methods for a 'generic' coronavirus - from an experiment that looks to have lacked a control procedure.
The researchers then claim "To further characterize the virus, de novo sequences of 2019-nCoV genome from clinical specimens (bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid) and human airway epithelial cell virus isolates were obtained by Illumina and nanopore sequencing. The novel coronavirus was identified from all three patients."
In Plain English:
"We gathered a bunch of partial nucleotide sequences from the clinical (not control) specimens, fed them into the computer, and - presto - it produced three genomes that exist nowhere but on the computer screen. We called these in silico genomes ‘BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-04/2020’, ‘BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-05/2020|EPI_ISL_402121)’, and ‘BetaCoV/Wuhan/IVDC-HB-01/2020|EPI_ISL_402119’.
It's Chinese for non-existent, globalist-ordered virus, mate! A virus that we never isolated and never demonstrated to hurt anybody except a bunch of cherry-picked cell lines!"
Die-hard defenders of the COVID charade might say I'm being a bit harsh. So, as noted above, a week ago I emailed three of the researchers to get clarification (I’ve reprinted the full email at the end of this article).
I asked whether the samples allegedly furnishing the viral isolate were obtained from the pneumonia patients discussed in the NEJM paper.
I asked why no biopsy was performed on the mystery deceased “Patient 2”.
I also asked the following:
Were the seven control samples subject to the exact same procedures described for the patient’s samples in the sections titled "Isolation of Virus" and "Transmission Electron Microscopy"?
Can you tell me if you performed control experiments to exclude the possibility that the target virus genome could have been sequenced from the control samples? Was RNA extracted from the seven control bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples subjected to these exact same procedures? Or was the attempt "to clone and sequence a genome" using the described sequencing and over 20,000 viral reads only made using the patient samples?
If control experiments were performed, could you please supply me with the documentation?
Was the viral isolate obtained by the procedures described in the paper subsequently administered to animal or human subjects under controlled experimental conditions, and demonstrated to cause pneumonia-like symptoms such as those described for Patients 1 and 2?
If any such animal or human experiments were performed, could you please supply me with the documentation?
The China CDC is apparently able to submit, review and publish papers within three days - a remarkably swift publishing timeline. It’s been a week and I haven’t received a response to questions for which the answers should be readily at hand. Assuming the study was genuine, that is.
I don’t believe the study was genuine - all indications are that it was a big fat fraud. I don’t ever expect to hear from the researchers - if I do, readers will be the first to know.
Bravo Anthony!!...another killer article..
PIROLA-ERIS = POLARISER