The Great Covid Con: Sars-Cov-2 Doesn't Exist & Has NEVER Really Been Isolated

Australian Researchers Claiming to Have Isolated 'Sars-Cov-2' Inadvertently Reveal They Did No Such Thing

In 2020, a virus called ‘Sars-Cov-2’ allegedly swept around the world, causing a disease dubbed ‘COVID-19’.

It was a scam. There is no Sars-Cov-2 and there is no COVID-19.

To all those who just blew their coffee all over their computers and screamed, “COVID is real, because I’ve had it!”, I have just one thing to say:

No you haven’t.

You had the flu, perhaps even pneumonia, just like hundreds of millions of people do each and every year. That garbage PCR test that told you had ‘COVID-19’ is non-specific rot steeped in controversy. It told people with the flu they instead had ‘COVID’, which is why influenza inexplicably near-disappeared in 2020.

I know what I’m saying is hard to fathom for some.

It means everything Planet Psycho experienced over the last 3.5 years was completely unnecessary. The destroyed lives, the ruined businesses and careers, the suicides, the egregious human rights abrogations, the gratuitous state-sanctioned violence against innocent people who just wanted to live like it was 2018, the lockdowns, the untold mental distress, the propaganda, the masks, the travel bans, the truly disgusting and disturbing hatred and harassment of dissenters, and of course, the intense pressure to be injected with deadly drugs made by confirmed criminal corporations like Pfizer, AstraZeneca and J&J.

When you understand that Sars-Cov-2 doesn't exist, then all argument about whether the above were necessary, were effective, and to what extent becomes moot. The reality instead dawns that all the above were based on a blatant lie and simply should not have occurred at all, ever.

How to Isolate a Virus that Doesn't Exist

On January 24, 2020, a group of CCP-controlled Chinese researchers published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the world’s first isolation of “2019-nCoV”, which would later become known as “Sars-Cov-2”, the virus that supposedly caused “COVID-19.”

Four days later, on January 28, 2020, a group of researchers from the 5-Eyes stronghold that is Australia claimed to be the first outside China to have isolated the virus, although their findings were not officially published in peer-reviewed format until June 1, 2020.

On January 31, 2020, a group of researchers from the Korean CDC published a paper claiming to have isolated Sars-Cov-2. Curiously, the paper says they used "samples from putative patients with COVID-19 ... to isolate the virus", indicating that they isolated Sars-Cov-2 from multiple patients. However, the paper proceeds to describe a single Korean patient from whom the isolate was obtained, as does a subsequent paper allegedly involving the same patient. The other mystery patients apparently vanished into thin air, suggesting their samples could not be manipulated into evincing the mythical Sars-Cov-2.

On March 7, 2020 - four days before the WHO declared a global 'pandemic' - researchers from the US CDC published a preprint claiming they had "isolated" SARS-CoV-2 from the first US 'COVID-19' patient

The reality is that none of these researchers isolated Jack Scheissen, but more on that in a moment. First, we need to reflect upon just what it means to 'isolate' a virus.

A virus is a thing. A thing that allegedly gets inside your body, hijacks cells, and causes disease. In other words, it's a visible, physical entity. It's not a thought, or a sound, or a short-lived bolus of wind released after eating too many whole-grains.

To isolate a physical entity means to physically separate it from anything else. Not in your mind, not on a computer, but in real life.

If you want to isolate a crime suspect from a crowd, for example, you seek to identify him and remove him from the crowd.

What you don't do is add even more people to the crowd, some wearing clothing similar to what the suspect is believed to be wearing, because that would simply create more confusion and make it harder to locate the suspect.

Duh.

But this, believe it or not, is akin to how virologists 'isolate' a virus.

Virus Isolation: Commonsense versus Common Idiocy

The virus isolation charade is underpinned by numerous acts of quackery, foremost among them being "viral cell culture" and "genome sequencing."

"Cell culture sometimes feels like a black art, with everyone having their own preferred method," says Derfogail Delcassian, a researcher at MIT, Massachusetts.

It’s a dark art, alright.

Most people would assume new viruses are discovered by placing samples of bodily fluids from allegedly infected people under a powerful microscope. They assume that researchers then peer through the microscope and observe something that looks like a virus, but with some distinguishing feature not previously observed on currently known viruses. You might think they yell "Eureka!", call their lab co-workers over to take a peek, and proudly declare the discovery of a new virus.

"This one's got a bald, sagging, prune-like outer layer, markings that look like swastikas, and a psychopathological sense of self-importance - let's call it KLAUS-19!"

Followed by high fives and the clinking of champagne glasses.

The average punter would assume the researchers then separate this newly-discovered virus from all the other porqueria present in the samples, in order to create a purified 'viral isolate' that contains a given amount of virus per unit of solution. This standardized isolate, they would assume, is then administered to hapless animals or brave/reckless humans in scientific experiments in order to:

1. Confirm it does in fact cause a pathological health condition (disease) and to what extent;

2. Develop treatments and cures for that disease.

As for declaring a global 'pandemic' on a planet containing eight billion people, you would naturally assume virologists repeat this process on thousands of people suffering symptoms of this alleged new disease.

If the 'novel' virus is isolated from most of those people, only then would we assume it plays a role in the alleged global outbreak of the 'novel' flu.

Using commonsense as a yardstick, the above is all a pretty sensible guess as to how viral isolation, and the declaring of a pandemic, might work.

The problem is, modern virology has absolutely nothing to do with commonsense. To the contrary, it's a load of voodoo nonsense.

The 'isolation' of Sars-Cov-2 in China, which comprises over 18% of the world's population, was based on four samples from unknown patients and case reports on - wait for it - three (3) people.

You read that right: The January 24, 2020 NEJM paper announcing the 'breakthrough' isolation of the 'novel' coronavirus that was allegedly flying around the world and destroying everything in its path was based on a mere four lung fluid samples in a country of over 1.4 billion people.

What's more, when you read the symptoms and prognosis of the three patients in the paper (who do not appear to be the same patients from whom the samples were extracted), there is nothing to suggest these patients were suffering anything other than atypical pneumonia. Around 1.5 million cases of community-acquired pneumonia occur in Mainland China each year (community-acquired means it occurred outside of hospitals which, it turns out, are great places to get pneumonia). Pneumonia can be caused and exacerbated by numerous factors, including infection, pollution, smoking, drugs, lung conditions, etc etc. Many cases of flu are of unknown cause and lumped into the "atypical" category, which is medicine's way of saying "we don't know how you got this, but you got it.”

The Australian 'isolation' study, meanwhile, was based on a grand total of one (1) person, a visitor from Wuhan.

The US CDC 'isolation' study was also based on a single person, allegedly a 35-year-old man who returned to Washington State on January 15 after traveling to Wuhan.

That means a global 'pandemic' was declared on the strength of samples from a half-dozen or so people. If that doesn't have you shaking your head in dismay, someone should probably check your pulse.

Viral 'Sequencing': Creating Something Out of Nothing

As for "sequencing" the genome of a virus, you would assume researchers first isolate the virus, then dissect its genome and list its constituent nucleotides.

What you would not expect researchers to do is identify a mere fraction of the nucelotides present in a mixture allegedly containing a virus, but also polluted with other sources of RNA and DNA, then feed them into a computer. You would not expect the researchers to sit back and allow the computer to construct an "in silico" genome from this fragment, then proclaim to the world that this speculative construct that exists only on the computer is in fact the verified genome of a real, live, 'isolated' virus. Especially a virus comprised of almost 30,000 RNA bases (nucleotides), which is what the mythical Sars-Cov-2 allegedly possesses.

That would not really be sequencing, but assembly.

Sequencing would be akin to dismantling, say, a Toyota Hilux, and cataloging each and every component as the vehicle was stripped down to its very last bolt. When it's time to put everything back together, you already know what the end result will be: A Toyota Hilux.

Assembly would be akin to taking an isolated and interchangable section of the Hilux, for example a drive belt, feeding its specifications into a computer, then being told by the computer that what you have in the garage is a Porsche 911.

You would not expect this kind of carry on from researchers because it would be truly ridiculous behaviour.

Well folks, what can I say, except welcome to the truly ridiculous world of virology.

They're All in this Together

Numerous research groups around the world claim they have isolated Sars-Cov-2. The methods they used are essentially the same. So for the sake of brevity, I'm going to zero in on a group of researchers who present an especially illuminating example of the Sars-Cov-2 isolation ruse.

I'm talking about researchers from the Peter Doherty Institute in Melbourne, Victoria, the Australian fasco-communist state run by psychopathic tyrant and trans groomer Dan Andrews.

"On Tuesday, 28 January," says Peter Doherty, the Institute's namesake and "patron", his researchers “confirmed they had successfully grown the virus in cell culture in the laboratory."

"The Doherty Institute," he proudly boasted, "was the first to grow the virus outside of China and the first to share it with the World Health Organization and public health laboratories across the globe."

Sure.

When it comes to viruses and vaccines, the Doherty Institute has a conflict of interest list longer than the Hume Highway, which I've detailed here. For now, let's look at how they achieved the remarkable feat of isolating a virus that doesn't really exist.

The Doherty Institute Sculpts a New Virus

On March 9, 2020, the Medical Journal of Australia website posted a preprint authored by 16 researchers, 14 of whom hailed from the Doherty Institute. The remaining two worked in Victoria government-funded health and academic positions. The researchers claimed to have isolated Sars-Cov-2 from the first patient diagnosed with 'COVID-19' in Australia.

Their anomaly-ridden paper somehow passed peer review, and was officially published in MJA on June 1, 2020.

After the usual introductory waffle about "a novel betacoronavirus originating in Wuhan", the authors kick things off by claiming on January 19, 2020 an unnamed 58-­year-­old man from Wuhan, China, arrived in Melbourne and "felt unwell".

According to the researchers, our mystery man had type 2 diabetes and was a former smoker.

He reportedly developed fever on January 20 and "a cough with sputum production" on January 23.

Nothing out of the ordinary so far, especially for someone arriving from a country in the midst of winter. However, things would allegedly get worse for Australia's Patient Zero. On 24 January, he was reportedly admitted to the emergency ward at Monash Medical Centre with shortness of breath. Chest X-ray and thoracic CT scan showed "opacities", a sign his lungs were suffering either acute or chronic impairment. His temperature was 38.1°C, his heart rate 95 beats/min, and O2 saturation 94%. His white blood cell count was low, his CRP was high, and his liver enzymes were all elevated. Liver ultrasound showed "hepatic steatosis", aka non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, which is quite common in diabetics.

Patient Aussie Zero was clearly sick, but there was nothing to suggest he suffered from some 'novel' and 'deadly' coronavirus. I mean, it's not like he suddenly stiffened like a board, 'collapsed' toward the ground, then miraculously outstretched his arms and leg to brace his fall while unconscious (!), like the guy at 0:38 in this clearly fake and staged video:

A virus that allows you to be conscious and unconscious at the same time: Now that is novel!

Another curious anomaly occurs when the researchers admit that antibiotics (IV ceftriaxone and azithromycin) were commenced on day 4 to treat "potential secondary bacterial pneumonia, although no bacterial pathogen was identified."

Low-­flow oxygen was administered until day 10. Unlike intubation, where a potentially infectious tube is rammed down your throat to mechanically force-feed oxygen into your lungs, low-flow oxygen is a relatively non-invasive treatment in which oxygen is fed through your nose.

The patient gradually improved; his fever, cough and shortness of breath resolved by admission day 12, and he was discharged from hospital on February 7, 2020 (admission day 15).

Let's take a moment to unpack what we've just read. The researchers would go on to say that they isolated Sars-Cov-2 from this patient. Sars-Cov-2, according to the 'experts', was a 'novel' virus for which no known treatment existed.

However, Patient Aussie Zero was treated with readily available and widely-used antibiotics, as well as non-invasive oxygen administration, and he recovered just fine, despite suffering diabetes and other signs of pre-existing poor health.

Antibiotics do not work against 'viruses'. That's not my contention, but an official and undisputed mainstream medical tenet.

This indicates that Patient A0's infection was caused by bacteria, not by a novel Woohoo virus. All the information provided indicates he was simply one of the 450 million cases of pneumonia diagnosed annually.

The treating hospital staff clearly proceeded as if this was the case, "although no bacterial pathogen was identified." That's because Patient Aussie Zero was never tested for any bacterial pathogen. Neither the paper, preprint or supplementary material make any mention of testing by the financially over-endowed Doherty researchers for any pathogen other than Sars-Cov-2.

It seems they weren't interested in finding any pathogen other than Sars-Cov-2.

No further mention is made of Patient Aussie Zero. We can only assume he uber'd off happily into the CBD, bought a few souvenirs, had a punt or two at the Crown Casino, then went back to Wuhan with plenty of interesting tales to tell.

"You guys won't believe what happened after I got off the plane in Melbourne..."

Patient Zero might have faded back into the crowd, but the Doherty crew made sure his bodily fluids went on to carve a place in history by claiming what he really suffered from was a 'novel' virus.

Here's how they did it.

As Patient Aussie Zero lay in bed, watching the antibiotics drip into his veins to successfully treat his bacterial pneumonia, the Doherty researchers tested his nasal swab, sputum, urine, poo, and serum samples for "Sars-Cov-2" by using PCR testing.

Which raises the obvious question: How on Earth do you PCR test for a 'novel' virus, when there is no PCR test available for that 'novel' virus?

Oh, that's easy: You create one.

The Doherty researchers claim they developed an "an in-­house real time RT-­PCR assay" for Sars-Cov-2, the disease that had yet to be isolated and from which Patient Aussie Zero evidently didn't harbour because his diagnosis and outcome was entirely consistent with bacterial pneumonia and was successfully treated as such.

To fully detail the processes involved would no doubt send many of you to sleep. If you’re reading this at work, that could prove embarrassing. Developing the PCR test and sequencing the genome involved cDNA kits, primers and probes, real-time PCR machines, Sanger Sequencing and a bunch of other modern-day sorcery.

All you really need to know for now is the irrefutable fact that all this carry on does not and can not physically isolate a virus. All fancy-sounding gobbledegook aside, the fact remains that at this point the virus existed only in theory.

Another key point, as you’ll discover later, is that none of this carry on was performed on control samples. “Control your variables” is one of the most fundamental and important rules of scientific experimentation, but it was not applied in this study.

The researchers claim they took their new PCR test, and used it on a nasopharyngeal swab and some sputum allegedly collected when Patient Aussie Zero first presented to the Monash Medical Centre.

Both samples tested "positive".

Using a test based on the RNA of a virus that they had never isolated, they had now confirmed the presence of a virus they had never isolated in a patient from Wuhan.

Got that?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this point, so I'll just do what I normally do, which is shake in my head in disdain.

Despite the fact that Sars-Cov-2, like other alleged viruses, is allegedly present in blood, urine, and feces, no Sars-Cov-2 was detected in Patient Aussie Zero's blood on admission, his single day 3 poo sample, or his urine samples. This is another curious anomaly, but the researchers briefly mention it and then continue on like nothing happened.

Sars-Cov-2, it turns out, is a highly selective, aware and mischievous virus. It knows when Australian researchers are about to test for it in blood, urine and feces, so quickly scampers off to hang with its buddies in sputum and snot instead. It feels sorry for Africa, so largely avoided that continent, despite its proximity to COVID 'hotspots' in Europe and the Middle East. It waited until after the 'vaccine' rollout before it started really infecting and killing people; I guess it hates Big Pharma. It was allegedly introduced to Spain via two football matches against an Italian team. However, it avoided Black Lives Matters protests and Aussie Rules football matches. It allegedly posed a deadly threat to people wanting to visit loved ones cruelly trapped in isolation, but not to sociopathic cops who gratuitously kettled, jumped and bashed freedom protesters.

Either Sars-Cov-2 is one remarkably aware virus, or those claiming its existence are talking complete and utter nonsense.

Before we move on to the cell culture charade, it must be reiterated that PCR testing supposedly detects the presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present. The original inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, stressed this years ago after being dismayed at the way in which PCR testing was being used to test people for HIV, the 'virus' that allegedly causes AIDS. Public Health England also stresses in its PCR guide that a positive PCR test does not tell us whether a patient is infectious.

This is important, because researchers claim PCR can detect a virus. But PCR can't tell if that alleged virus is infectious, so claiming the existence of a virus based on PCR alone is a complete and utter wank. After all, the only reason we care about a virus is because it is allegedly infectious and causes disease. If a virus was just some random and inconsequential arrangement of nucleotides, few people would give a rat’s sphincter about it.

So the next step for the Doherty researchers was to prove this virus actually existed in a physical sense.

Then they could set about sequencing its genome.

And this is where mierda really gets loco.

Cell Culture: The Dark Art of Growing Viruses that Don't Exist

The next step in the charade was to grow the virus in culture. This is the bit where virologists claim, "see, there really is a virus, and we've got the pictures to prove it!"

In viral culture experiments, the alleged virus is exposed to a bunch of cells in flasks. Researchers then monitor the mix to see if the alleged virus 'infects' the cells.

The Doherty researchers began by taking African green monkey kidney cells (which contain RNA and DNA) and adding them to flasks containing Earle’s minimum essential medium (a cell culture media containing amino acids), 7% fetal bovine serum (which contains RNA and possibly DNA), the amino acid L-glutamine, sodium pyruvate, sodium bicarbonate, HEPES (a buffering agent used to maintain physiological pH) and the antibiotic geneticin (which, by the way, is toxic to kidney cells).

I don’t know about you, but if I was trying to isolate a RNA virus, the last thing I would do is add RNA from external sources to the mix.

Fetal bovine serum is a very popular growth medium in viral cell culture experiments. Problem is, it's not a pure, inert substance. While it has cells and clotting factors removed, over a thousand components conducive to cell growth remain, including growth factors, hormones, lipids, sugars, transport proteins, vitamins and minerals. More concerningly, Harvard, Oxford and Singapore researchers demonstrated in 2016 "that FBS contains a diverse repertoire of protein-coding and regulatory RNA species ... The majority of them (>70%) are retained even after extended ultracentrifugation ... FBS-associated RNA is co-isolated with cell-culture derived extracellular RNA (exRNA) and interferes with the downstream RNA analysis. Many evolutionally conserved FBS-derived RNA species can be falsely annotated as human or mouse transcripts ... Analysis of publically available exRNA datasets supports the notion of FBS contamination. Furthermore, FBS transcripts can be taken up by cultured cells and affect the results of highly sensitive gene expression profiling technologies." (Bold emphasis added)

So in order to isolate a RNA virus, researchers nonchalantly throw the patient sample and the experimental cell lines into a mix containing RNA that yields the very real potential to affect the results.

As for the experimental cell lines that are used to give the virus something to 'infect', you're probably wondering "why monkey cells? What's wrong with human lung cells? After all, Sars-Cov-2 is a human respiratory virus, right?"

And why African green monkey kidney cells, you're probably further wondering?

All good questions to be wondering. Now here's the answer.

Virus isolation is like a magic trick, an illusion. Like all magic tricks, the circumstances have to line up in a manner that will enable you to successfully pull off the illusion and leave the crowd gasping in awe.

Viral isolation experiments hinge upon establishing the so-called "cytopathic effect," in which the alleged presence of a virus causes damage to the cells. When researchers point at images of what they claim is a virus, the reality is that you could be looking at inconsequential cellular particles, such as endosomes or extracellular vesicles such as exosomes. These are not 'viruses' but a normal cellular presence and are floating around in your body in abundance right now as you read this. Therefore, researchers need to show that what they claim is a virus in those electron micrograph images is in fact a pathogenic microorganism.

Problem is, these cellular particles often look a lot like what researchers claim is a virus.

Below is an image of cells allegedly infected with Sars-Cov-2 virus particles in the January 24, 2020 paper by Zhu et al, who claim to be the first to have isolated the virus. 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 regular 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 Corona Con kicked off:

They all look alike, don't they? What researchers are claiming to be virions are probably just exosomes.

That's where the "cytopathic effect" charade comes in. The cytopathic effect supposedly proves that those little dots we see in the first three pictures really are the virions of a pathogenic virus because they are "cytopathic", i.e. they cause damage to cells.

The first thing to know as we begin dismantling the CE sham is that "cytopathic effect" experiments don't work with healthy cells. For researchers to get the results they want, they have to use use special cell lines, which are effectively dysfunctional ones.

Even then, many specialist cell lines still won't produce the highly sought after cytopathic effect.

Regular, healthy human lung cells would be the obvious choice, but they're no good to researchers because they take too long to show any damage that can be dubbed as a “cytopathic effect”.

One cell line that can be relied upon to give researchers the results they're after is vero cells. These are specially bred monkey kidney cells that have chromosomal abnormalities. They are highly reactive to chemical insults and have a high propensity to die, break up, and produce various exosomes and other "virus-like" particles that virologists are looking for. Virologists then claim these "cytopathic" effects are due to the presence of a disease-causing virus.

As you might imagine, you could probably get the same effect by putting other things in a test tube, like a gob of mucus from a Wuhan resident with bacterial pneumonia, diabetes and fatty liver. You don't necessarily need a 'virus' to create this effect.

Nevertheless, the “cytopathic effect” is the foundation of virology. As Mark Bailey MD notes in The Viral Delusion, "it's simply fraudulent." It doesn't establish that there is a 'virus', and it doesn't establish that this alleged virus causes a disease.

Researchers have already established from decades of experience that specially bred Green African kidney monkey cells will give them the results they want, the results they need to show 'significant' findings worthy of publication.

An African green monkey.

So after growing the bred-for-purpose African green monkey kidney cells to their satisfaction, the Doherty researchers then removed the maintenance media, before overlaying some of Patient Aussie Zero's respiratory swab "inoculum" (mucus) on the monolayer of cells produced by the abovementioned procedure.

The flask was then incubated at 37°C for 1 hour, at which point 10 mL viral culture media was added. This contained EMEM as above but with the fetal bovine serum content reduced to 2%. In other words, the researchers added even more external RNA and DNA to the mixture from which they were allegedly trying to isolate an RNA virus.

Just brilliant.

These flasks were then monitored for the mythical "cytopathic effect".

What virologists do when seeking out the “cytopathic effect” is take an initial happy snap (electron micrograph image) of their specially bred African green monkey kidney cells before adding the so-called 'viral isolate', which is the non-purified patient sample.

The researchers then take the 'viral isolate' - which we all know is not really an isolate because it is comprised of the patient sample, which contains not just a suspected virus but all the other unappetizing porqueria contained in a wad of mucus - and pour it onto the African green monkey kidney cells (which themselves have been bathed in all sorts of stuff including foreign genetic material and kidney-toxic antibiotics).

They then let the mixture sit. Each day, while it sits, they take more images of the mixture using the uber-powerful electron microscope.

Eventually, the African green monkey kidney cells start to deform and become dysfunctional. You would too, if you were removed from your natural environment and placed in a solution containing fetal bovine serum, antibiotics and the mucus of an unhealthy diabetic from Wuhan.

This deterioration of the African green monkey kidney cells is then hailed as proof of the "cytopathic effect."

Oh dear.

To a sensible person who doesn't profit from virus hysteria, this so-called "cytopathic effect" proves nothing.

You would fully expect cells to break down when left in such an unnatural and unappetizing mix.

There is also the obvious difference between a living human being, with its myriad of functioning physiological systems (respiratory, circulatory, lymphatic, immune etc etc), and a glass receptacle in a laboratory.

Virologists, of course, have a retort. "We had a control sample! And no cytopathic effect was observed in that control sample! So you're wrong and we're right! Ne ne na na na!"

Not so fast.

In a scientific experiment like this, true control would mean that you have controlled for everything except the actual virus.

But that's impossible. We've already seen how at no point in this viral isolation charade do researchers physically isolate a virus. It's simply assumed to be there in the patient sample, and when the patient sample is poured in with vero cells and those cells start to deform, it's taken as proof that there is a virus in the patient sample. Researchers then point to little round things in their electron micrograph images, which are in all likelihood exosomes, and declare "see, that's the virus!"

Which brings us to the most brazen, eye-opening part of the Doherty paper.

Doherty Researchers Inadvertently Admit They Found NO Coronavirus

The Doherty researchers write in their MJA paper that, two days after pouring the mixture of diabetic Wuhan phlegm, bovine fetal serum, etc on the African green monkey kidney cells, "a subtle viral cytopathic effect was observed", which became "distinct" at day 6 compared with an "uninfected control cell line". We'll talk about that alleged "control" later; for now, the main point is that they've observed a so-called cytopathic effect, so by the wacky rules of virology, that means there was an infectious virus in the mix.

Electron micrographs of the mixture, write the researchers, showed "spherical and pleomorphic virus-­like particles" displaying "prominent spikes" allegedly "characteristic" of viruses from the coronavirus family. Electron micrographs of sectioned green monkey kidney cell showed "cytoplasmic membrane-­bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles."

But as we saw above, those particles look just like exosomes.

What the researchers are admitting to here is that they haven't yet observed a novel virus. They're just claiming they can see things that are "virus-like" and have spikes "characteristic" of coronaviruses in general.

What they need to get this Sars-Cov-2 charade across the line is to find and visually document something in the mix that is clearly and unmistakably a coronavirus. Not just that, but something that is clearly a novel, never-before-seen coronavirus. As you're about to learn, the researchers embraced a very creative method for identifying that novel coronavirus.

I use the term "creative" in the most literal sense possible. As in, they literally created it.

The following is from their MJA paper. Read it carefully:

"Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology."

And so the sham is blown wide open.

No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't find anything that looked like a bonafide coronavirus virion.

So they reached for a bottle of trypsin - a protein digesting enzyme (!!) - and added it to the stubborn mix.

Presto! As the trypsin began eating into the "virus-like" particles (probably exosomes), those particles developed ragged edges that the researchers declared to be coronavirus "spikes."

What the researchers are in reality admitting is that they could not find a novel coronavirus, so they had to create something that looked kinda sorta like a coronavirus by adding a powerful protein-digesting enzyme into the mix.

They have the temerity to then write this "immediately improved virion morphology" - which apparently is code for "it finally gave us the results we were after!"

After sculpting a coronavirus, they allegedly sequenced its genome and dubbed it “BetaCoV/Australia/VIC01/2020”. It’s Australian for Sars-Cov-2, mate!

A Lack of Control

Die-hard virologists will no doubt defend the above shenanigans, insisting the "cytopathic effect" is proof there was a pathogenic virus in the mixture.

So on March 12, 2023 I emailed Sharon Lewin, who is the director of the Doherty Institute and also the listed contact author on the 2020 MJA isolation paper.

I asked:

"Apart from the material from the patient's initial nasopharyngeal swab, was the control cell line identical in every other aspect (i.e. the same Vero/hSLAM cell line in EMEM, fetal bovine serum, L-glutamine, sodium pyruvate, sodium bicarbonate, HEPES and geneticin at the same concentrations as the inoculated culture)? If not, could you please give full details of the control cell line sample used?”

I received a response a day later from another of the paper's authors, Julian Druce, who wrote:

"The control cells and the test cells were identical (both Vero/hSLAM), set up at the same time, same media and components, and same incubation conditions. There is only one variable between test and control, which was the addition of patient sample to the test flask and the addition of the same volume of medium to the control flask."

This confirms there were as an important confounder: The mucus contained in the nasopharyngeal swab sample of Patient Aussie Zero. 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.

So the difference between the control sample and the patient sample was not simply the presence of an alleged virus: The so-called viral sample by necessity contained the patient's nasopharyngeal mucus, and all the inglorious yeccch inevitably present in that slime.

Druce's response was confirmation enough for me that experiments demonstrating the so-called "cytopathic effect" are essentially worthless.

However, another skeptic, Marvin Haberland, also contacted the Doherty Institute with additional questions. Marvin is a German engineer and certified champion who copped a BS fine during the scamdemic for not wearing a mask. As part of his legal defense, he set about to prove Sars-Cov-2, the virus masks are supposed to be protecting us from, did not exist. Perhaps not wanting to be the trigger for an international revolution if Marvin was able to prove his point, the court dropped the case on April 26, 2023 and assumed the costs.

While he was preparing his defense, Marvin contacted the Doherty Institute regarding their MJA paper in February 2022. As well as inquiring about the control cell line, he also asked:

"Regarding genome sequencing from the infected cell culture, did you perform control experiments to exclude that also other virus genomes could have been assembled de novo or via alignment using other reference genomes?"

The answer was revealing:

"We did not look for other viral genomes. Our assembly was performed against the released Wuhan-1 reference sequence as we were looking for Sars-CoV-2." (Bold emphasis added)

This confirms what I surmised earlier: The researchers were simply not interested in finding anything other than 'Sars-Cov-2.'

Marvin also asked: "Did you perform control experiments to exclude that the target virus genome could have been assembled de novo or via alignment from the negative control culture?"

Again, the answer was most illuminating:

"Sequencing and de novo assembly was only performed on positive, infected material." (Bold emphasis added)

So not only was the "cytopathic effect" experiment not truly controlled, no attempt was made to run a negative control for the sequencing portions of the study.

Too Much Monkey Business. Or Not Enough?

After having read about the farce that is "cytopathic effect" experimentation, astute readers are probably wondering whatever happened to human and animal experimentation. After all, the best way to test whether an alleged virus is harmful to humans would be to administer a sample of that alleged virus, not to monkey kidney cells, but to humans.

Duh.

Of course, people aren't always happy to be infected with potentially dangerous pathogens. If you approach them with the proposition, you may be subjected to naughty words, spirited admonitions to go away or self-fornicate, and possibly threats - even after you've told them it's for science.

Lab animals don't have the same luxury of refusal. So the poor things are routinely used in scientific experiments as substitutes for their uncooperative human cousins.

And what better lab substitute for humans could you find than monkeys? After all, they belong to the same hominid family as we humans. Sometimes, you could be mistaken for thinking they are from the same species. I mean, if you look at a picture of a monkey, and then a picture of John Howard or George W. Bush and squint your eyes ... see what I mean?

So, what would happen if you administered what researchers claim is 'Sars-Cov-2' to a group of monkeys?

I'm so glad you asked.

The answer is ... nothing.

On September 8, 2020, los criminales de Pfizer posted a preprint describing the effect of their COVID gene therapy (a.k.a BNT162b2 or Comirnaty) on 2-4 year old male monkeys. The experiment, to those who read it carefully, is quite revealing. So revealing, in fact, that it has quietly been ignored by el cártel de Pfizer and its muy buenos amigos in government and media.

First thing of note is that the researchers correctly refer to the mRNA drug in the preprint as "modified mRNA" and "modRNA" instead of the deceptive and innocent-sounding "messenger RNA" term that was subsequently adopted.

The second key observation is what happened to the monkeys. Or, more to the point, what did not happen to them.

In order to ascertain the effects of the 'vaccine’, one group of 6 monkeys was injected with a lower dose of the Pfizer drug, another 6 were injected with a higher dose, and the remaining 6 served as a control group and were injected with saline solution.

Six monkeys in the higher dose group and three age-matched monkeys from the saline control group were then "challenged" 55 days after Dose 2 with an equal amount of what was allegedly SARS-CoV-2. The alleged virus was administered via nasal and throat passages.

The infected monkeys were tested using PCR.

Pfizer claims the vaxxxed monkeys showed signs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in their nasal swabs only on Day 1 after their virus challenge. They further claim at no point was viral RNA detected in lung fluid.

In the saline control group, viral RNA was detected in nasal swabs obtained on Days 1, 3, and 6 after SARS-CoV-2 challenge. It was further detected in lung fluid on Days 3 and 6 after viral challenge.

Now, if you believe all this COVID nonsense and its accompanying hysteria, you probably think you already know what happened next. You probably think the vaxxx-free monkeys died. You probably think the 'immunized' monkeys got sick but survived, taking to social media to tell the world "just as well I was vaccinated, or it could have been much worse!"

Of course, if you believe all this COVID nonsense and its accompanying hysteria, you're a fool. Here's what really happened, in the Pfizer crew's own words:

"In general, virus-challenged animals showed no clinical signs of significant disease."

Read that again.

Researchers gave our hominid cousins what is allegedly the most deadly, virulent disease in the history of the universe. COVID-19 was not just the 1 in 100 years virus, it was the 1 in 2,600,000 years virus that threatened to wipe humanity off the map, or so we were told by Jeffrey Epstein's 'dinner' companions.

But when researchers from Pfizer - who you can be damn sure wanted the unvaxxxed monkeys to get sick and die in order to make their gene therapy look good - literally forced this alleged virus down the monkeys' throats and up their noses ...

... nothing happened.

Zilch. Nada. Niente. Bugger all.

This, of course, is a most inconvenient observation for a company hoping to inject every person on Earth with its new 'life-saving' gene therapy, so the researchers came up with the most ridiculous rationalization:

"We conclude that the 2-4 year old male rhesus macaque challenge model is primarily a SARS-CoV-2 infection model and not a COVID-19 disease model."

That's right, folks: When administered to monkeys, claim Pfizer scientists, the uber-deadly COVID-19 magically transforms from "a disease model" to "a SARS-CoV-2 infection model."

With researchers like that, who needs morons.

The bottom line is that when an alleged isolate of Sars-Cov-2 is invasively administered to monkeys, nothing happens, irrespective of their gene therapy status. They keep grinning, scratching their heads, and trying to score free bananas from researchers.

Which brings us back to the monumental wank that is the "cytopathic effect".

Virologists, like most of us, don't like failure. They want results that they can publish in journals, results that will garner them accolades and awards and research grants.

Claiming you have discovered a 'novel' virus that is threatening the continued existence of humanity, then administering that virus to animals who continue to survive and thrive, does not garner awards and accolades. Instead, it makes you look like an idiot.

So virologists have created a system guaranteed to reduce their odds of looking like an idiot. At least to other idiots. It's the scientifically untenable charade that is viral cell culture, genome sequencing (read: computer assembly of in silico genomes from small, partial nucleotide sequences) and the uncontrolled farce that is "cytopathic effect" experimentation.

The researchers involved in this farce somehow manage to keep a straight face while spouting the most ridiculous self-contradictions. For example, actual monkeys are nothing but an "infection model", we are told, but their isolated, specially bred kidney cells suddenly, magically, amazingly become a magnificent "disease model"! One that supposedly serves as a valid model for real, live, walking, talking human beings!

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! (Heck, in hopelessly woke Australia I can legally be his auntie. Or his cat).

The whole thing is a bad joke, folks. A big, bald-faced, globalist-owned and -operated joke.

I'll repeat once more. There is no Sars-Cov-2.

It's a scam. In fact, it’s the greatest scam so far pulled on humanity, and we've been exposed to some doozies.