Reading Progress:

No, the CDC Did Not Admit That SARS-CoV-2 Has Not Been Isolated

by Dec 7, 2020Health Freedom, Articles, Economic Freedom82 comments

Colorized electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (Image by NIAID, Licenced under CC BY 2.0)
False claims fueling the widespread delusion that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't exist are harming efforts to combat the authoritarian responses to COVID-19.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

For months, I have been continually confronted with the belief held by many within my own community of readers that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has not even been proven to exist.

I would much prefer to spend my time fact-checking the self-proclaimed “fact checkers” that are censoring factual information while hypocritically misinforming the public. But there’s one claim in particular that I’ve been faced with repeatedly that really needs to be put to rest because it is serving only to legitimize the “fact checker” narrative that opponents of authoritarian “lockdown” measures are spreading misinformation.

The specific claim is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated—in other words, that it has not been proven to exist.

The “smoking gun” document in which the CDC ostensibly admitted that the virus hasn’t been isolated is titled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCov) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel”. It is published on the website of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

When claims about this “smoking gun” first circulated, the document at that link was dated as being effective on July 13. As I’m writing this, the date on it is December 1, 2020. I’ll come back to that version, but if you want to see the version from July, it’s still accessible via the Internet Archive here.

The key quote from that document that is being used to support the claim is this, from page 39:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with . . . .

That’s the supposed “smoking gun” confession by the CDC that SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated.

Except, as I explained in my newsletter on October 24, the claim that this represents such an admission from the CDC is demonstrably false. (I frequently send quality content exclusively to subscribers, so be sure to sign up here.)

Nevertheless, I’ve continued to get emails or responses on social media from readers insisting that the CDC has admitted that the virus has not been isolated. So, I’m writing this article to be able to direct people to it instead of taking the time to repeatedly explain it all over again.

The first point that needs to be made about this “smoking gun” quote is that it has been taken completely out of context. If we want to understand the intended meaning of the sentence, we must examine the context from which it has been taken.

The context is that this document was written back in January shortly after the initial COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, and while the CDC was developing its own reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) for the purpose of diagnosing COVID-19 patients.

The document was originally dated “Effective” as of February 4. You can verify this in this earlier archived version of the document on the FDA’s website. You can also verify that the statement about not having a virus isolate originated in that earlier document.

What the CDC was saying in that document was that it did not have access to an isolate of the virus at the time it was developing its PCR test. The statement about no isolate being available was specifically relevant for that moment in time.

The CDC was not saying that the virus had not been isolated, period. It had been. It just was not available to CDC researchers at the time they were developing the PCR test.

Naturally, since the outbreak in the US did not occur until after the outbreak in China, it was Chinese researchers, rather than those from the CDC, who first isolated the virus.

The first whole genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was submitted to GenBank, an international database of all publicly available genetic sequences, on January 5. The genome sequencing of the virus was described in a paper published in the journal Nature on February 3 titled “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China”.

It was based upon the published sequence of the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome that the CDC developed its own PCR assay to detect the presence of specific sequences of the virus’s RNA. The CDC had not yet sequenced the whole genome of the virus itself because virus isolates hadn’t been made available by China for CDC scientists to work with and the CDC had not yet isolated the virus yet for itself.

The CDC subsequently did obtain its own virus isolate from a patient in Washington state. The process by which this was done was described in a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 5 titled “First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States”. In sum, in late January, a clinical specimen from the patient was purified by centrifugation. Then, using its own PCR test, the CDC detected viral RNA from SARS-CoV-2 in the sample.

The CDC also isolated and sequenced the whole genome of the virus for itself, which was described in a paper published on March 11 in the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases titled “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”. After purification, they inserted the substrate into cell cultures and observed cytopathic effects and viral replication. They then sequenced the virus’s whole genome.

As the CDC explains on this page of its website (archived here), it received the clinical specimen on January 20 and immediately replicated a sufficient amount of the virus in cell culture for study. By February 2, CDC researchers had generated sufficient SARS-CoV-2 to distribute isolates to medical and scientific researchers.

Note that this means that by the effective date of the FDA’s approval of the PCR test, the CDC had already obtained a virus isolate, and the statement about not having the virus was already obsolete. Again, the simple intended meaning of the statement is that the CDC hadn’t had the virus in its possession at the time of its PCR test development.

Going back to the CDC document dated February 4, if you look at the lower left corner, you’ll see that it is marked as Revision 1.

The reason that the CDC document is published on the FDA’s website is that the CDC’s “diagnostic test” required the FDA’s approval for clinical use. “Emergency Use Authorization” was granted by the FDA effective February 4.

Now, if you look at the CDC document dated July 13, you’ll see that it is marked as Revision 5.

The CDC explains the reason for the July 13 update on this page of its website (which page is currently showing as having been last updated on October 9). The reason is that the FDA had “approved an amendment on July 13, 2020, to add the Promega Maxwell® RSC 48 as an authorized extraction instrument for use with the CDC 2019-nCoV rRT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.”

The July update had nothing to do with the isolation of the virus. The fact that the verbage of the statement on page 39 remained in the present tense is totally irrelevant. It is the context that dictates the meaning of the sentence, and in its context, it is obvious that the statement was specifically relevant for that moment in time when the CDC was developing the test. In its context, it was obviously not an “admission” by the CDC that the virus had never been isolated.

Anyone claiming that this quote is evidence that the virus has not been isolated has already convinced themselves that the virus has not been proven to exist and is grasping at straws trying to sustain that belief. The only thing that this claim is evidence of, in other words, is the problem of confirmation bias and the willful ignorance that accompanies it. This refusal to acknowledge the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is causing harm and undermining the efforts of the health freedom movement to confront the existential threat of authoritarian governance.

As I mentioned earlier, since I wrote that newsletter in which I explained why the CDC “admission” claim is false, the CDC document has since been updated once again. Currently showing is Revision 6, dated December 1 (archived here). If you scroll down to what is now page 42, you can see that the supposed “smoking gun” statement now also been updated to read (emphasis added):

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted . . . .

That intended meaning was always self-evident from the context, but it’s reasonable to assume that it was updated to explicitly state the obvious because of the harmful misinformation being spread based on the original wording.

Another related claim is that the March 11 paper in which CDC researchers described sequencing the whole genome of SARS-CoV-2 showed that the virus is incapable of infecting human cells. But that, too, is false—another instance of harmful misinformation serving only to undermine efforts to effectively combat the overwhelming propaganda of the mainstream discourse that is serving to manufacture consent for authoritarian political agendas.

In that study, the CDC researchers “examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549) human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells” and “big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B)”.

Researchers use cell cultures to detect the presence of infectious viruses by observing for cytopathic effects and viral replication. The CDC researchers’ purpose was to determine which of the cell lines commonly used for this purpose would be most suitable for use with SARS-CoV-2.

They did find that the human cell lines they tried were not infected. On the other hand, the virus did replicate in the Vero cell lines, which are derived from the kidney of an African green monkey.

This does not mean that SARS-CoV-2 is incapable of infecting humans. That conclusion is a non sequitur fallacy. Just because the virus did not infect those specific human cell lines does not mean that it does not infect other types of human cells. It is well established that SARS-CoV-2 infects human cells that express what is known as the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. This includes cells lining the lungs and respiratory tract.

It was not the CDC researchers’ purpose to determine whether the virus could infect human cells. That it could do so had already been demonstrated. They had obtained their own virus isolate from an infected human. The claim that this paper constitutes an admission that SARS-CoV-2 does not infect humans is delusional.

Tellingly, I have seen individuals expressing both beliefs at once: the virus has not been shown to exist and the existent virus is not infectious to humans. This is the type of cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain the belief that there is no virus called SARS-CoV-2 infecting and causing disease in humans.

All too frequently, when I’ve tried to inform such individuals of the errors in their reasoning, they’ve responded by expressing vitriol toward me for not sharing their delusion. For example, one recipient of my October newsletter has emailed repeatedly ever since to insist that the CDC “did admit” that the virus hasn’t been isolated (November 22), that I “did not address anything and did not prove” that the claim is false (November 24), that I “seem to enjoy word arguments and skirting real things” by insisting that the claim is false (November 26), that I should “Just admit” that I “made a mistake” by insisting that the claim is false (December 4), and that I “did not demonstrate anything” in my October newsletter detailing why the claim is false (December 6). The same day this guy wrote me to meaninglessly assert I had not demonstrated anything, he unsubscribed from my newsletter, providing as a reason that I am “controlled opposition” whom he can “no longer trust”.

That is the level of self-delusion we are dealing with. The refusal to reason is disturbing. My patience with these types of people plaguing me with their harmful idiocy has reached its limit. I have no need or desire for people like that in my community of readers, so if this article alienates people like him and prompts them to unsubscribe from my newsletters, good riddance.

We all have important work to be doing to combat the existential authoritarianism, and all this distracting nonsense has been hindering my own labors due to the unfortunate need to address it. Fortunately, most of my subscribers are sensible individuals, and I strongly urge my reader community to help me combat this misinformation for the sake of the serious harm that it is causing to the health freedom movement.

Of course, it’s not only researchers from China and the CDC who have isolated the virus. It has been isolated and its whole genome sequenced by scientists all over the world, and many studies have been published about this research in the peer-reviewed medical literature. As I’m writing this, nearly 30,000 whole genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 have been submitted to GenBank (archived here). Scientists use this data, among other purposes, for tracking the evolution of the virus as it moves around the globe passaging through the human population and undergoes various mutations (archived here).

The widespread misuse of PCR tests to diagnose COVID-19 is a whole other issue. It is true that PCR tests used in clinical settings detect only RNA fragments and that positive tests are being wrongly equated as “COVID-19 cases” even though they don’t prove the presence of infection much less disease.

I detailed how authoritarian lockdown measures are being justified on the basis of this institutionalized scientific fraud in my recent article “Facebook ‘Fact Check’ Lies about PCR Tests and COVID-19 ‘Cases’”.

I encourage you to read and share it. It is important to fight authoritarian policies that cause harm and violate fundamental human rights. If we are to succeed in our efforts, we must not legitimize claims of spreading “misinformation” but instead share the scientifically uncontroversial facts that the government and thought-controlling media do not wish us to know.

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

  • Deyan G Georgiev says:

    The NIAD’s images and the studies may well be respectively CGIs and medical/scientific fraud. We know the precedents: http://www.cluesforum.info

    • Deyan G Georgiev says:

      Correction: *NIAID

    • The corollary of that suggestion is that the entire scientific community all around the globe are participating in a massive hoax. This is implausible. The virus has been isolated and its whole genome sequenced by scientists all over the world.

      • Jeff Martin says:

        So THEY say. This whole bunch lies all the time. The PCR test was NEVER meant to DIAGNOSE anything. Just ask the inventor of the test, Kary Mullis. OH… you can’t because he is dead. How convenient. And there there is a cabal of Globalists that lie about their intentions all the time. Wake up!

      • Jeff, tens of thousands of scientists don’t just “say” they have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and sequenced it’s whole genome, they have published their work in the peer-reviewed literature and/or published the sequences to the international GenBank database, as I pointed out in the article.

        Also, you seem confused about the difference between virus isolation and PCR tests. As I also pointed out in the article, these are two different things.

      • officerTruth says:

        Jeremy: “They dont just say it, they are peer reviewed”

        Ok so he said it and all his co workers said it.

        You guys just keep talking. Show me the sample.

      • You virus deniers just keep talking and ignoring all the published data proving the existence of the virus they’ve named SARS-CoV-2.

      • Anne says:

        https://needtoknow.news/2021/02/chinas-chief-epidemiologist-admits-covid-19-virus-was-never-isolated-and-is-not-proven-to-exist

        China’s chief epidemiologist, Wu Zunyou,
        admits Coup-vid 19 virus was never isolated and is not proven to exist!!!!

      • Anne, the claim at the link you shared is false. The head of China’s CDC did not state that SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated. He said they did not isolate the virus from any animals at the Wuhan wet market. The clip is being taken out of that context by people who want to deceive you.

      • Palacias says:

        You really don’t know shit about virology. so you need to take this down. You are poisoning the world with misinformation about something extremely important. It all comes down to this: A scientific paper that shows a proper isolation of viral particles where the methods begin with a sample from a suck person and end with pure 100% viral particles. That has never been done and it cant be done, because the viruses don’t exist. The papers don’t exist period, so delete this hogwash that perpetuates the virus theory.

      • You really don’t know shit about virology.

        That’s a rich statement coming from a person denying all of the literature in which virologists and other scientists describe isolating SARS-CoV-2 and all of the data from tens of thousands of scientists all over the world who have isolated and sequenced the whole genome of the virus.

      • Ajata says:

        Jeremy, Methinks thou protesteth too much. What is your agenda? If Sars-COv-2 had been isolated, there would be an accurate test for it, but there isn’t one. As another commenter stated, the PCR test is not a diagnostic tool, and the way it is being used is causing a huge percentage of false positives, i.e. “cases” to keep the pandemic alive and well. Isn’t all of this obvious??

      • I state my purpose in writing this article in the article. Your argument that since there is no “accurate test” for SARS-CoV-2 — by which you evidently mean a test that, unlike PCR tests, can be used as a diagnostic tool — therefore the virus has not been isolated is a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The virus has been isolated and its whole genome sequenced tens of thousands of times by scientists all over the world. Please see the links provided in the article for studies and the international database of published sequences.

    • Deyan says:

      Took a page out of a flat earthers playbook. Nice move Deyan.

  • Greg Hill says:

    Jeremy, you continually earn my respect as one of the greatest independent journalists of our times. It’s amazing to me how few of us today are able to just look at the objective scientific facts the way you do, without letting emotion-laden subjective opinions block the road to rational thinking. My hat is off to you, sir. Thank you for all that you are doing.

  • Edwin Pyle says:

    Geese Jeremy…. get a thicker skin. This clarification is tough for us lay people to digest. And please afford your readership some time to assimilate. Or, excuse the lack of logic. It’s a strange phenomena that so many mistruths,disinformation, smoke and mirrors have effected a population discord with the need to embrace fear (albeit, the wrong fear) …I’d say, it’s like we want an apocalypse? We got bored with materialism? Or infected with a new empowerment over our neighbors…get back Satin…I need 6 ft…so, slowly, my frustrations with the coming..inevitable..reset have ah, quelled. Your one of a few gifted intellects. Please continue with my blessings and maybe mitigate some consequences.

    • Hi Edwin,

      I don’t see a problem here with me not having thick enough skin. On the contrary, I wouldn’t have written this article if my skin wasn’t thick. If you’d like to identify aspects of this that my article doesn’t make clear enough, I’d be happy to elaborate.

  • Jeannie Brady says:

    Jeremy, whatever you have heard and choose to believe is your right as a journalist. I dont believe there is a covid19. Question: Why did the Chinese Govt kill dr Liang and other whistle bloewrs? What were they afraid of? I feel differently about this whole coup going on. Best of luck.

  • Ron Hollis says:

    My question is did the CDC prove that Covid-19 has been identified and isolated. I remain skeptical and don’t trust China.

    • Ron, “COVID-19” is the name of the disease, not the virus. The virus is named “SARS-CoV-2”. And, yes, the CDC confirmed the finding of Chinese researchers by isolating the virus itself and sequencing its whole genome, as has also been done by tens of thousands of scientists all over the world.

      • Liberty Man says:

        SARS-CoV-2 isolated by tens of thousands of scientists? Really? { I hope you’re not including the consensus of 97% of climate scientists–humor}. I wouldn’t have guessed there were that many electron microscopes in the world. Well, you should have no problem supply links to several hundred electro-micrographs of the isolated virus. The author of a paper I read ( sorry, don’t have the link handy) received replies from researchers, but none supplied an image of a virus all by itself.
        I think the point of the paper was that how do you engineer a reliable detector when you haven’t first isolated a known quantity — your “gold standard”. So show me a few links to isolation studies with supporting photo evidence.

      • SARS-CoV-2 isolated by tens of thousands of scientists? Really? { I hope you’re not including the consensus of 97% of climate scientists–humor}. I wouldn’t have guessed there were that many electron microscopes in the world.

        Yes, really. I am not citing a consensus opinion, so there’s no parallel to the climate debate. It’s not a matter of opinion but of documented fact. See my article for links. Electron microscopy is not required for virus isolation.

  • James says:

    Isolation means nothing as that’s no longer credible today. The PCR tests go off assumptions and is based off testing for exosomes which are your own genetic material excreted from cells due to excessive toxicity build up in a human body.

    This is why they must pay hospitals 13.5k to label deaths as Covid deaths if they test positive with the tests that test for exosomes. This is why according to John Hopkinson’s University there has been no increase in deaths from 2019 to 2020.

    Due to the shutdowns there has been a dramatic increase in suicides but magically the flu and ammonia deaths have gone down which is because they’re listed as COVID deaths.

    Common sense says this is a lie to push the vaccination which according to many independent doctors in various fields around the world that this is the real pandemic the real terror that can and will cause changes to our DNA, cause infirtility, and have over 20 dangerous side effects including death according to the FDA.

    • James,

      Virus isolation and whole genome sequencing is a different issue than the PCR tests being used wrongly for diagnosis. I pointed this out in the article, but you still seem to conflate the two.

    • Red says:

      I thought SARS-COV-2 & COVID-19 were 2 completely different ‘things’? SARS-COV-2 has been mapped/isolated whereas COVID-19 has not? SARS-COV-2 supposedly [causes] COVID-19 from my understanding.

      It’s the ‘disease’ that has not been proven, COVID-19. Supposedly its existence is based off of computer models. And of course it does not help with the whole misuse of the PCR testing.

  • ilo says:

    Several things. You admit the CDC have been published in several revisions. They are at Dec 2020 right now. With each revision they have the chance to update the document. They have never updated the phrase “no isolated samples are available”. Therefore, there are still no isolated samples available.
    Second, I sent a FOI request to NIAID to ask how they isolated their sample. There response was a paper that described the process. It show there was NO isolation of the sample. The images are not of pure virus. Therefore they do not prove COVID virus exists.
    And third, there are over 45 FOI requests that have come back from facilities all over the world. None have in their possession any documents saying that there has ever been a COVID virus isolated from any patient.
    There is NO proof of a virus.

    • “With each revision they have the chance to update the document. They have never updated the phrase ‘no isolated samples are available’. Therefore, there are still no isolated samples available.”

      First of all, as I pointed out, they have updated that statement to explicitly state that that was true at the time the test was being developed. Second, even if they hadn’t, your logic is fallacious. It’s a non sequitur fallacy. Your conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

      Second, I sent a FOI request to NIAID to ask how they isolated their sample. There response was a paper that described the process. It show there was NO isolation of the sample.

      So you say. I don’t believe you have any idea what you are talking about, and your use of the non sequitur fallacy does not instill confidence in your ability to reason.

      And third, there are over 45 FOI requests that have come back from facilities all over the world. None have in their possession any documents saying that there has ever been a COVID virus isolated from any patient.

      That’s quite a claim. Again, I don’t believe you. I’m familiar with a source that’s been doing nonsensical FOIA requests that are worded to preclude getting any results. Also, that whole inquiry is silly since, as I pointed out in my article, information about the isolation and whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 not hidden away in government archives but is abundantly available in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

      But go on and just keep ignoring the science, if it helps you maintain your beliefs.

      • jay says:

        what a load bullshit you are. You can just wipe away any science that you don’t agree with? People like you need to culled.

      • You can just wipe away any science that you don’t agree with?

        I have done no such thing. On the contrary, it is those who are denying the existence of the virus who are doing that.

  • ShootTheOrc says:

    All of this is blahblahblah utter bullsh**. Seriously, only a fool believes a known liar. EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT AGENCY are “known liars”, some are so well know for their lying they have become a buzzword, a mockery and butt of jokes for all and sundry. We are being force-fed lies, BS, and threatened with violence if we do not parrot the idiotic narratives from government authoritarian tyrants, but now supposedly “truthers” back their playbook?. None of this stuff holds up under scrutiny. None.

    I do not care what nonsense people post on internet, this covid is not true at all and I refuse to buy any of it, no matter how much sophistry and enveigling of facts and fiction they spit into our collective faces. How is it that covid is everywhere yet no seasonal flu? What? did the croner bug infect and kill off the flu bug? Or is the more likely scenario that covid is actually seasonal flu? How likely is it that the genome posted is actually the genome in question? Remember, THEY ARE ALL CONSTANT LIARS! I know firsthand that government agencies lie about everything and anything, including the USDA in regards to soil moisture. And if they lie about that, imagine something political!

    So, Jeremy, you can go ahead and believe any ole narrative talking points you want. However, it is highly unlikely you will convince anyone to believe the idiotic lies being told about this whole planneddemic. Well, actually, you probably can since people these days are gullible, stupid, and lacking in any ability to discern.

    • All of this is blahblahblah utter bullsh**.

      It’s curious, then, that you didn’t even attempt to identify even a single error in fact or logic on my part.

      • ShootTheOrc says:

        So when a child is caught red-handed in the cookie jar and he “splains away” why he was in the cookie jar with aliens, homework eating dogs, santa claus & toothfairy visits and other mishmash of typical childish B.S. ; is it important to break down every component, explain why it is BS and lies and fabrication? Or rather does a person just say, STOP LYING and BSing!

        Yeah, just like that, Jeremy. BS does not need to be ‘splained away’. It needs to be recognized and summarily dismissed. You figure out why its BS. That is your mission if you wish to have discernment.

      • You are violating the terms of use of the comments section of this site.

        “If you disagree with an article or other commenters, you are welcome to express your contrary view, but please support your position with an argument (i.e., point out where you think there are any errors of fact or logic). Comments consisting of mere dismissals or that otherwise do not substantively address others’ points may be deleted.”

        Only warning.

      • Someone says:

        The links you posted in your article claiming isolation of sars-con-job-2 is not what you claim it is lmao. In fact most of the links you posted do not back up what you claimed in the first place.
        We need Proof.
        Not just words.

        Describing a process is not proof even if you want it to be lmao.

      • The links you posted in your article claiming isolation of sars-con-job-2 is not what you claim it is lmao

        The links show precisely what I say they do. LMAO.

    • ilo says:

      Don’t bother arguing with this Jeremy guy. He obviously is as arrogant as they come. He thinks he knows everything about this subject. You can’t say anything that disagrees with him because he’ll just dismiss it or dismiss you as an idiot. He’s been proven wrong about so much but he won’t admit it. He has too much ego to let him do that.

      • Don’t bother arguing with this Jeremy guy. He obviously is as arrogant as they come. He thinks he knows everything about this subject. You can’t say anything that disagrees with him because he’ll just dismiss it or dismiss you as an idiot. He’s been proven wrong about so much but he won’t admit it. He has too much ego to let him do that.

        You have just violated the terms of use of this site.

        “Comments must be of reasonable length, relevant to the topic of the article, and respectful to others.”

        You have just treated me with unwarranted disrespect.

        “You must be civil and courteous towards authors and other commenters.”

        You were just uncivil and discourteous toward me.

        “Substantive criticisms are welcome, but ad hominem argumentation, personal attacks, insults, and abusive language are not.”

        You expressed your view that substantive arguments should not be presented and proceeded to engage in a personal attack and insult me, i.e., you resorted to ad hominem argumentation to sustain your own contrary belief about it.

        “If you disagree with an article or other commenters, you are welcome to express your contrary view, but please support your position with an argument (i.e., point out where you think there are any errors of fact or logic). Comments consisting of mere dismissals or that otherwise do not substantively address others’ points may be deleted.”

        You refused to support your position with an argument and merely dismissed what I’ve written with an ad hominem fallacy.

        Your commenting privilege is therefore revoked.

  • Tehani says:

    I’m curious as to what you think about all the FOIA requests, then, showing multiple countries and multiple departments within HHS and FDA, CDC, NIH all stating they have no documented evidence in regards to the isolation/purification of a “SARS-COV-2” virus, much less that it’s the cause of some specific disease. And we all know by now, surely the fraud of the RT-PCR test in diagnosing viruses in the first place, correct?

    105 pages of FOIA requests: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FOI-responses-re-covid19-virus-isolation-purification-34-institutions-Nov-11-2020-chrono.pdf

    • I’m curious as to what you think about all the FOIA requests, then…

      I think they are idiotic. If you ask government agencies to produce documentation of SARS-CoV-2 isolation using methods other than the methods used to isolate all viruses, of course you are going to get no results. Also, documentation of the isolation and whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 is not hidden away in government archives but abundantly available in the published peer-reviewed scientific literature, as I pointed out in my article.

      Some people just have way too much time to waste with such silly endeavors.

  • Adulterating a patient sample (never shown to contain any “SARS-COV-2”) with fetal bovine serum, monkey cells + toxic drugs, irrationally blaming “the virus” for harm to monkey cells, & calling the concoction “virus isolate” is blatant fraud, not isolation of anything. Yet Jeremy, you consistently turn a blind eye to this blatantly fraudulent science at the heart of COVID-1984.

    I invite everyone to review our email conversation. You consistently failed to cite even 1 legit “isolation” study, evaded the simplest of questions re the published fraudulent studies, but were an expert nitpicker on trivial details that don’t make the slightest bit of difference to the topic at hand.

    Emails with Jeremy Hammond, Oct 25 – Nov 14
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/6055-2/

    Then on twitter you made clear you defend this blatant fraud. I’m sorry to know that so many people are influenced by you.

  • Lori Prest says:

    Jeremy I am usually one to commend your thorough research and efforts at honest journalism. However, I must disagree with your harsh criticism of anyone who continues to question the isolation and purification of a SARS-COV-2 virus presumed to cause a group of symptoms labelled COVID-19. Please read the following in-depth report from Sayer Ji and his Green Med Info team who I also can usually rely on for their truthful information and motives.

    https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20The%20Scam%20Has%20Been%20Confirmed%3A%20PCR%20Does%20Not%20Detect%20SARS-CoV-2%20%28QYHLZk%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9jb21wYW55X2lkIjogIksydlhBeSIsICJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJwcmVzdEByb2dlcnMuY29tIn0%3D

    I emphasize the following conclusion after dissecting the Corona Virus study processes used to date. There remains a lack of response/provision of valid studies after numerous FOI requests re: SARS-COV-2 isolation studies from many countries.

    “In essence, NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN SUPPOSED HUMAN CORONAVIRUS HAS REALLY BEEN ISOLATED. The only thing that has been different between them are the laboratory procedures and techniques that were becoming progressively more sophisticated which, in this case, has implied not a greater accuracy but a greater capacity for deception and self-deception that has culminated in the virtual manufacture of the SARS-CoV-2.

    And the obvious consequence of the lack of evidence of its isolation is that such “coronaviruses” cannot be held responsible for any disease. Moreover, all tests – of whatever kind – based on the presumed components of these “viruses” (nucleic acids or proteins) are completely disqualified as “infection tests” and even more as “diagnostics” of diseases.

    MORE UNANSWERED REQUESTS

    In the previous issue we already collected the answers given by the authors of several articles that supposedly described the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in which they acknowledged that they had not “purified” which implicitly means acknowledging that the virus was not isolated. And now we are going to add one more piece of evidence: the responses given by different authorities – political and health – from various countries about the purification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2.

    James McCumiskey -author of the book The Latest Conspiracy: The Biomedical Paradigm- tells us that the National Virus Reference Laboratory of Ireland requested information about it from the University of Dublin and the latter responded that “it has no records that could provide an answer to their request”. The director of legal services of the laboratory insisted on his request to the university and the university responded as follows: “The position of the university is that material of academic debate cannot be subject to the Freedom of Information Act”. It follows from the NVR’s request that they have not cultivated SARS-CoV-2 or purified it. They only acknowledge having “detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in diagnostic samples.”

    On June 22, a group of experts sent a consultation in similar terms to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The letter was signed by Dr. Kevin Corbett, Piers Corbyn – professor at Imperial College London -, the engineer and independent researcher – who we interviewed in the journal at the time – David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, the Edinburgh professor of biology Roger Watson and the biologist and chemist David Rasnick – and to this day they still have not received a reply!

    Another similar request – in this case to the National Research Council of Canada – received the following response: “We have not been able to carry out a complete search of the NRC’s records so we regret to inform you that no records have been identified that respond to your request.”

    We will add that two journalists have been sending similar requests – under the Freedom of Information Act – to various institutions in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, and as of September 5, twelve institutions have responded, all indicating the same thing: that they have no record of work describing the isolation of the virus that is supposed to cause Covid-19. The details and the answers can be seen at

    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/u-k-dept-of-health-and-social-care-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/

    All of the studies to date have been based on presumptions, assumptions, partial genome sequences etc. and none of them appear to have met Koch’s Postulates 1-4. A healthy dose of skepticism re: SARS-COV-2, COVID-19, PCR and antibody tests, is well warranted. Your readers will continue to question everything about this ‘pandemic’ despite your frustrations.

    • Please read the following in-depth report from Sayer Ji and his Green Med Info team who I also can usually rely on for their truthful information and motives.

      Neither Sayer Ji nor GMI produced that content. They just republished it, which I find regrettable. Here is the source:

      https://www.dsalud.com/reportaje/la-estafa-se-constata-la-pcr-no-detecta-el-sars-cov-2/

      There remains a lack of response/provision of valid studies after numerous FOI requests re: SARS-COV-2 isolation studies from many countries.

      Yes, I’m familiar with this claim. It’s nonsense. First, evidence of the isolation and whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 isn’t hidden away in secret government archives. It’s in the published literature and public GenBank database.

      Second, it’s easy to get a FOIA request to return no results when you word the request to essentially say, “Please provide records of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using a method other than the methods scientists use to isolate viruses.”

      It would be superfluous for me to respond further the the arguments.

  • Danchi says:

    Jeremy,
    Reading through these comments I am flabbergasted by the lack of civility and critical thinking on the parts of the commenters. I don’t always agree with some of your positions but I would never, even on a blog, digress to the level of vitriol these people have. One thing that people don’t understand is that science is not static. As new information becomes available through research, testing, experimentation etc, the information changes. I don’t see what so difficult to understand that information posted in January has evolved and changed to something different in December. I use the example of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis who revolutionized hand washing before surgery and delivering babies in 1846. Just think of how many more women would have survived if this practice had continued and utilized by more Drs. Unlike today you have the naysayers/conspiracy theorist who would not look at the numbers and the science. Thankfully, there are more people willing to not jump on the conspiracy train and shove the science under the rug.

    You have the patience of a saint but if at some point you decide to go off on one of these belligerent commenters-I wouldn’t blame you.

    • Thank you, Danchi. I personally felt my patience had surpassed its limits and that I was going off on belligerent commenters when I wrote this article! But I appreciate you feel I’ve been restrained in responding to their vitriol.

  • Ann says:

    Hi Jeremy, thank you for all of your hard work.First id like to ask how dangerous Covid -19 is? And also why would we think that something that has been around so long( like the flu ) is something we need a vaccination for?And we need it immediately or we will all have to be locked down?Also let’s call it like it is. It’s a shot,NOT a vaccine! Let’s not say vaccine anymore ! Also I would like proof that it has been isolated. This is complete insanity! I don’t believe anyone anymore🙃

  • Jody says:

    Hi Jeremy

    Thank you for addressing this topic.

    I admit the level of technical knowledge necessary to analyze the research you cite is over my head. But still, it stands to reason that more people that do have the technical knowledge would come forward if the virus remained unisolated. There are a great many researchers, medical professionals, epidemiologists and other experts that have come out and denounced the global societal imprisonment schemes, masks, monomaniacal obsession with one germ and other aspects of this fraud that has been imposed on humanity. Just consider The Great Barrington Declaration. The dissenters from the germ apocalypse narrative are censored, disparaged, blacklisted and otherwise punished and destroyed yet they still have made their statements. So I think they would also mention if the virus hadn’t been found to exist at all.

    I’m a little disappointed that Lew Rockwell gives voice to Bill Sardi and Jon Rappaport. I understand they have a lot of valuable things to say but your point about discrediting the larger movement holds. I was partially deceived myself by Sardi and Rappaport. (I do not claim it is there intention to deceive) But I never fully bought into their claim, and thankfully I never promulgated it. I wish Lew Rockwell had shown the same caution. That’s the problem though. We can’t all be expert enough on all of these issues to make good decisions about promoting or declining to promote certain concepts and narratives.

    In any event, I really appreciate your intelligence, penchant for honesty and what you are offering lay people like myself, that would like sensible, well reasoned, approachable explanations about some of these topics, that are highly technical by nature. You do excellent work as far as I can see.

    • I’m a little disappointed that Lew Rockwell gives voice to Bill Sardi and Jon Rappaport.

      My sentiment exactly. Hugely disappointed to see the “no isolation” nonsense on Lew’s site.

  • Bruce says:

    Jeremy, Allow me to provide you with an in-depth commentary on the ‘Fraud’ that you present as ‘Truth”, rather than my own opine. The following article, it could be said is the ‘gold standard’ that supports your hypothesis. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article The following is an analysis of the ‘fraud’ that’s postulated by Dr. Tom Cowan: https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/ This week, my colleague and friend Sally Fallon Morell brought to my attention an amazing article put out by the CDC. The link to the article is here, and it was published in June 2020. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification, and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.

    First, in the section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, that the CDC “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).”

    To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.

    The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by “consensus,” sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn,” so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.

    The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:

    “Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.”

    What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible “hosts” or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.

    The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.

    The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.

    My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.

    If people really understood how this “science” was done, I would hope they would storm the gates and demand honesty, transparency and truth.

    • First, in the section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end…

      They described both virus isolation and whole genome sequencing. As the term implies, this meant that the sequenced the whole genome from beginning to end.

      • Segue says:

        I’m here trying to figure out the truth in this mess and appreciate that you’re trying too. Here’s the quote from that study that Bruce is referring to,

        “Whole-Genome Sequencing

        We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs. We used positive PCR amplicons individually for subsequent Sanger sequencing and also pooled them for library preparation by using a ligation sequencing kit (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, https://nanoporetech.comExternal Link), subsequently for Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing. We generated consensus nanopore sequences by using Minimap version 2.17 (https://github.comExternal Link) and Samtools version 1.9 (http://www.htslib.orgExternal Link). We generated consensus sequences by Sanger sequencing from both directions by using Sequencher version 5.4.6 (https://www.genecodes.comExternal Link), and further confirmed them by using consensus sequences generated from nanopore sequencing.

        To sequence passage 4 stock, we prepared libraries for sequencing by using the Next Ultra II RNA Prep Kit (New England Biolabs, https://www.neb.comExternal Link) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. In brief, we fragmented ≈70–100 ng of RNA for 15 min, followed by cDNA synthesis, end repair, and adaptor ligation. After 6 rounds of PCR, we analyzed libraries by using an Agilent Bioanalyzer (https://www.agilent.comExternal Link) and quantified them by using a quantitative PCR. We pooled samples and sequenced samples by using a paired-end 75-base protocol on an Illumina (Illumina, Inc., https://www.illumina.comExternal Link) MiniSeq instrument and using the High-Output Kit and then processed reads by using Trimmomatic version 0.36 (11) to remove low-quality base calls and any adaptor sequences. We used the de novo assembly program ABySS (12) to assemble the reads into contigs by using several different sets of reads and kmer values ranging from 20 to 40. We compared contigs >400 bases against the National Center for Biotechnology Information (Bethesda, MD, USA) nucleotide collection using BLAST (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.govExternal Link). A nearly full-length viral contig obtained in each sample had 100% identity to the 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020 strain (GenBank accession no. MN985325.1). All the remaining contigs mapped to either host cell rRNA or mitochondria. We mapped the trimmed reads to the reference sequence by using BWA version 0.7.17 (13) and visualized these reads by using the Integrated Genomics Viewer (14) to confirm the identity with the USA-WA1/2020 strain.”

        Okay so there’s a lot of ‘greek’ in here for those of us who aren’t medically-trained, but that first line about the PCR’s ‘spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence’ seems to imply that they only checked for information at certain locations or bands based upon their ‘reference sequence’ rather than looking at the whole genome. I’m assuming a whole genome is pretty complex, even for a measly retrovirus. Is that what they’re saying here? Is that why Bruce is like, ‘no they didn’t sequence the WHOLE genome’ and you’re like, ‘for all extents and purposes, they did, because doing the WHOLE thing for reals would be too complex’?

        I’ve been hearing all the arguments on this precise topic and it is indeed maddening.

      • When they say “spanning the genome”, they mean just that: the sequenced the whole genome. Hence that section of the paper being titled “Whole-Genome Sequencing”. Otherwise they would have described partial genome sequencing. Here is more on Sanger sequencing:

        https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/sequencing/sequencing-learning-center/capillary-electrophoresis-information/what-is-sanger-sequencing.html

      • Segue says:

        Okay, so this is confusing. From the same study:

        “Specimen Collection

        Virus isolation from patient samples was deemed not to be human subjects research by the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (research determination no. 0900f3eb81ab4b6e). Clinical specimens from a case-patient who had acquired COVID-19 during travel to China and who was identified in Washington, USA, were collected as described (1). Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens were collected on day 3 postsymptom onset, placed in 2–3 mL of viral transport medium, used for molecular diagnosis, and frozen. Confirmed PCR-positive specimens were aliquoted and refrozen until virus isolation was initiated.
        Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation

        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.”

        Okay so first of all, how is THIS a sentence? “Virus isolation from patient samples was deemed not to be human subjects research by the National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (research determination no. 0900f3eb81ab4b6e).”

        …and second of all, what does it mean? Why do they talk about a human subject but then in the next paragraph talk about culturing monkey cells?

        Did they have to put the human virus on the monkey cells in order to sequence the genome, or did the CDC make a determination that it was unethical or otherwise unacceptable to utilize the human specimen and then went on to create an equivalent using animal cells?

        It doesn’t make any sense to a layperson such as myself, so any insight is appreciated.

      • Okay so first of all, how is THIS a sentence? … …and second of all, what does it mean? Why do they talk about a human subject but then in the next paragraph talk about culturing monkey cells?

        That sentence just says that the isolation process didn’t constitute research on human subjects. This is an ethics disclosure. They didn’t require approval from an ethics board since it didn’t involve human experimentation. They then explain how they cultured the virus using Vero cells (from monkeys). They use Vero cells for this because Vero cells have been shown to be effective for it. The virus will not replicate in all cells so they have to select a cell line that is suited for the purpose. Since primates are so similar to humans and can also be infected with SARS-CoV-2, the choice of Vero cells makes sense.

      • Segue says:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEaH-boaoY I (and a lot of other people) asked Dr Sam Bailey to do a video to clarify Virus Isolation. What is your opinion of what she says?

      • She’s repeating the misinformation that the virus has never been isolated. The argument that we should reject what scientists mean when they refer to “isolation” of viruses in favor of a layperson’s unscientific understanding of the word is just downright silly.

      • Segue says:

        Okay, so are you implying that these samples listed here are isolated and purified and contain ONLY the SARS-CoV-2 genome (or variants)? Or are they raw samples from sick people and contain possibly other bacteria and pathogens in addition to SARS-CoV-2? How do we know? I don’t see any criteria listed for what types of samples BEI accepts. https://www.beiresources.org/BEIHighlights1.aspx?ItemId=79&ModuleId=14004

      • No, they were not raw samples. They were purified, isolated, and whole genome sequenced.

  • Mike says:

    Virologist and molecular biologist Stephen Lanka who offered a 100,00 reward for anyone who could prove the measles virus .A Dr. Bardens tried to collect with 6 studies and the case went to the German Supreme Court and Lanka won .In Feb 2016 the court made a ruling that there is no proof of the existence of the measles virus. So now we have Dr. Robert Laue of the Robert Koch Institute in Germany offering a 225,00 reward for anyone who can offer the proof of the purified isolated SARS-COV -2. Jeremy let me know when you have collected the money.

    • In Feb 2016 the court made a ruling that there is no proof of the existence of the measles virus.

      That is false. The court did not question the existence of the measles virus, which is incontrovertible. Rather, the court determined that because Lanka’s terms included himself being the judge of what constituted the proof he was seeking, he was within his rights to refuse to pay out the reward.

      Measles virus exists. SARS-CoV-2 exists. The belief to the contrary is a delusion.

  • Mike says:

    When the case ended up in the German high court experts concluded that the six papers Dr. Barden submitted in fact did not constitute proof of a measles virus . Lanka commissioned an independent lab to perform negative control experiments where they use sterile substances from healthy people to make sure its not the method in the laboratory that is killing the tissue and cells . That is exactly what happened the tissue and cells died in the same way as when they come into contact with allegedly infected material . If you have the proof of SARS cov 2 isolation then you should collect the 225,000 reward from the Koch Institute . Why does measles only infect children and young teens, does the virus know your age?

    • When the case ended up in the German high court experts concluded that the six papers Dr. Barden submitted in fact did not constitute proof of a measles virus.

      No, that is false. The court did not consider whether or not anything submitted constituted proof of the existence of measles virus. They only considered whether the submitted papers met Lanka’s criteria, and they noted that since Lanka’s terms were that he was to be the sole determiner of whether the papers met his criteria, therefore they did not.

      It is not true that measles only infects children and teenagers. It also infects adults. The reason why adults didn’t typically get measles during the pre-vaccine era is because they’d already been infected as kids and so had developed lifelong immunity. I am surprised you do not know this.

  • David Dick says:

    The term isolation means free from everything else. The medical establishment kills and poisons the cells and THEN, they find a contagious virus. The medical establishment does not recognize Webster’s defenition of the word isolation.

  • Yes, the claim that the CDC admitted the virus hadn’t been isolated turned up again quite recently, and is clearly invalid if you check the dates. However
    1) a number of studies claiming to prove the isolation of the virus have been debunked, and
    2) numerous authorities around the world have either failed to show evidence of the isolation or have admitted that they have no such evidence. See for example https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

    • 1) a number of studies claiming to prove the isolation of the virus have been debunked

      To dismiss all of the studies in which the isolation of the virus has been described is not to “debunk” those studies. The claim that “proper” isolation of viruses does not involve the use of cell culture is false. On the contrary, cell culture is considered the “gold standard” of virus isolation.

      2) numerous authorities around the world have either failed to show evidence of the isolation or have admitted that they have no such evidence. See for example https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

      These FOIA requests are just plain silly. Naturally, if you request documentary evidence for isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods scientists use to isolate viruses, then you are going to return no results.

      • GSTYPLX says:

        Let me simply ask the following two questions:

        1. Forget SARS-CoV-2 altogether. Can you point me (and anyone else who is curious) to any individual or organization who has documented via video or actual imagery… not photoshop or CGI… of what they claim to be a “virus” behaving pathogenically in a NATURAL setting (meaning a human body… or at least a mammal).

        And has allowed any of the documentation to be publicly reviewed, questioned and verified.

        2. Assuming that you can provide information identifying such an individual or organization and their accompanying research… can that same entity (or related individual or entity) provide documented research showing (thru video, actual imagery or verifiable proof) that same “virus” behaving pathogenically and demonstrating the ability to travel from it’s original host body and into a completely different human body and continuing to behave pathogenically inside the new human body.

        To the best of my knowledge… neither of these two have EVER been proven publicly, in front of peers and able to be reviewed, questioned and verified.

        So with all due respect, until proof of these two dynamics have been publicly presented, questioned and verified… we’re just playing word games and semantics.

        Religious belief and faith in the corporate commercial science/academia/pharmaceutical infrastructure can be a bit of a burden when it comes to facts and reality.

        Here is a great hour-long discussion on this very subject should you wish to explore anything beyond the corporate commercial narratives: https://vimeo.com/524112268

      • You can believe what you want, but if you are arguing that since the virus has not been photographed in a human, therefore it hasn’t been proven to exist, you should understand that you cannot put a human under an electron microscope. Etc.

  • chris says:

    Hi Jeremy.
    I have great respect for your work but I am curious as to why you so staunchly defend your stance on this subject. Do the deniers really damage our health freedom movement? Surely any opposition is good. Have you investigated thoroughly what Dr Kaufman, Dr Cowan, Dr Stephan Lanka, Torsten Engelbrecht, Sam Bailey etc are actually saying? Can a virus really truly be isolated Insilco? Maybe the gold standard cell culture scientists are using to isolate viruses is wrong? What do you think of Stephan Lanka’s latest experiment
    https://odysee.com/@Pistol:3/DR.-STEFAN-LANKA-JUST-DISPROVED-VIRUS-THEORY:2

    • Do the deniers really damage our health freedom movement? Surely any opposition is good.

      Wrong. It is not true that “any opposition” to the mainstream narrative “is good” because when misinformation comes out of the health freedom movement, it damages the credibility of the health freedom movement and legitimizes the opposition’s claims that the movement is spreading misinformation. We have to be more sensible and strategic than that.

      Have you investigated thoroughly what Dr Kaufman, Dr Cowan, Dr Stephan Lanka, Torsten Engelbrecht, Sam Bailey etc are actually saying?

      I have lost more productivity doing so in the past year than I care to admit.

      Maybe the gold standard cell culture scientists are using to isolate viruses is wrong?

      That is what they are claiming, but their argument boils down to saying that we must reject what scientists mean by “isolation” in favor of a layperson’s dictionary-definition understanding of the word, and consequently that we must dismiss literally all of the relevant scientific literature. They cannot cite even a single peer-reviewed study to support their belief that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. This is a delusion.

      What do you think of Stephan Lanka’s latest experiment

      I think he’s a con artist spouting nonsense. Studies describing the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 have used uninfected controls when doing cell culture. The claim that they never use controls is demonstrably false. The claim that cytopathic effects would occur in negative controls is false (as is evident from the studies in which CPE was observed only in infected cells). The claim that you can do whole genome sequencing with any negative control and still produce the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 (or any other virus, for that matter) is ludicrous.

  • Josh says:

    Jeremy

    This is horrible journalism. You assert that this coronavirus or really any virus has been isolated. You referred to this article:

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

    Go over to the ‘Methods’ section.

    This is what was said:

    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).

    Can you please tell me how adding penicillin/streptomycin, antibiotics/antimycotics and amphotericin (which all of them are very toxic) constitute as isolating a ‘virus’ from someone’s snot?

    If you call that ‘isolation’, then I can’t save you

    I strongly suggest that you read and reread the methods using for ‘virus isolation’ and even look at the profile of all of those antibiotics and drugs, as well as the cell lines.

    • This is horrible journalism.

      No, Josh. Horrible journalism, as I’ve clearly demonstrated, is the false claim that the CDC “admits” that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated.

      As for the silly argument of Kaufman and Cowan that you are repeating, what it boils down to is the assertion that we must reject what scientists mean by “isolation” in favor of a layperson’s dictionary-definition understanding of the word, as though it were possible for scientists to suspend a virus in a vacuum for observation. They use this reasoning to assert that SARS-CoV-2 has never been “properly” isolated, but they don’t explain how scientists “properly” isolate viruses without the use of cell culture. This is natural since cell culture is by no means an improper method but is in fact considered the gold standard method for virus isolation. This makes sense since viruses require host cells for replication.

  • Bobby Jones says:

    ANDREW KAUFMAN MD RESPONDS TO JEREMY HAMMOND
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/UnpfmjmXNH0O/
    Kaufman backs up his points with evidence.
    Jeremy is only repeating the mainstream science talking points with no evidence.
    Thousands Scientist are using the same flawed experiment to isolate a virus so they get the same results.
    There has never been an experiment that has shown a sick person to have infected a healthy person.
    All virologist are using the same Rockefeller medical mafia playbook never question the science because most of the funding comes from Fauci at the NIH so no critical thinking is applied and all dissenting voices are silenced and censored from MSM.

    • How puzzling for you to say I have “no evidence” supporting what I’ve said when my position is backed by literally all of the relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature and the “no virus” people cannot cite even a single paper to support their claim that the virus does not exist. There’s a lot to unpack in Kaufman’s video. If I can manage the time, I’ll write a response article to correct the misinformation he relies on to maintain his evidently sincere belief that viruses don’t exist.

    • Rick Battams says:

      I’ll side with Andrew Kaufman on this subject, with no hesitation. The ‘war’ model of health that germ theory is is demon-inspired. Nature doesn’t attack nature. If you believe in God, and you don’t believe that he’s mankind, collectively, then germ theory will strike you as absolute nonsense. (If you don’t believe in a Creator, that’s fine. You won’t be as strongly draw to terrain theory as I am. That doesn’t mean that you can’t still come to view it as correct.) God didn’t create project earth, with its crowning feature, man, reflecting the Creator, and then toss into his perfect garden home invisible monsters to plague us forever. (The rebellion in Eden meant a loss of paradise, but that’s another subject.) As David Martin said, Nature isn’t attacking us. People who’ve sold their souls are attacking us.

      Speaking of people who have sold their souls, Jon Rappoport is absolutely right; The virus (and by extension pandemics) is the (profitable) cover for harms caused by manmade chemicals and irresponsible industrial practices by uncaring, unprincipled capitalists.

      • Nature doesn’t attack nature.

        I guess carnivores are a myth, then.

        The virus (and by extension pandemics) is the (profitable) cover for harms caused by manmade chemicals and irresponsible industrial practices by uncaring, unprincipled capitalists.

        Correct, except for the part about them being capitalists. Their means are totally antithetical to free market capitalism. To acknowledge the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is not to align oneself with their authoritarian political agenda. On the contrary, to effectively fight their tyranny, we must be on the side of truth.

  • aimee says:

    I really have to credit you Jeremy along with Dr Mercola for opening my eyes to the potential harms of vaccines and I am so grateful as I believe you (and others) saved my second child of potential harm. It took be a good many years to recover from the cognitive dissonance I experienced as my family, my doctors and all the government agencies were of no help at all and telling me the exact opposite to your information. I now have to say thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that there are doctors and scientists out there that are proposing that there is evidence or lack there of pertaining to fact that viruses do not exist. While this is very hard to get your head around, if this were true this entire Covid narrative would crumble and there would be no need for vaccines at all. After reading your article I have found that Dr Kaufman, Dr Cowan, Dr Brogan, Dr Bailey and Dr Lanka all propose this idea. The reason why I started looking into this is because I noticed that you, Jeremy are using very similar tactics as the pro vax proponents in your arguments which made me look into this proposal in the first place. For example, the argument that how could 100’s of scientists be in this huge conspiracy. The fact that 10 of 1000s of doctors and scientists believe in vaccines and that the measures of Covid masks and lockdowns are necessary, is argued in the same way. Similarly, those who question the vaccine science also point out the importance of continuing to question dogma and so called “settled science” in order for things to move forward. Saying that this debate is unproductive, is just using that same old argument “do not question”. I have also noticed that this small group of doctors I pointed out only ever present their data and facts and never resort to name calling such as “you must of drank the cool aide” or “you’re delusional” and are extremely well versed and professional. Whether this is true or false I think it is very productive to continue to look into it. How great would it be if doctors and scientist from both sides debate on this topic? Even though I have the utmost respect for your work, after listening to Dr Kaufman’s rebuttal of your interview I have to say Dr Kaufman came on top for rationale and professionalism. He seems like an amazing person. I will continue to look into this topic as I am a questioner and will never stop questioning. It seems unproductive to me to waste energy on fighting the people on your team rather than learning from each other

    https://odysee.com/@Truth_will_set_You_Free:0/Virus_Isolation_Is_It_Real_Andrew_Kaufman_Responds_To_Jeremy-Hammond:e

    • For example, the argument that how could 100’s of scientists be in this huge conspiracy. The fact that 10 of 1000s of doctors and scientists believe in vaccines and that the measures of Covid masks and lockdowns are necessary, is argued in the same way.

      The difference is that the claim that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist logically necessitates that the global scientific community be participating in the perpetration of a deliberate hoax, whereas advocacy of the right to informed consent and opposition to authoritarian policies certainly does not necessitate belief in a “conspiracy theory” as the advocates of authoritarianism frequently proclaim. I am not using the phrase as a euphemism.

      Similarly, those who question the vaccine science also point out the importance of continuing to question dogma and so called “settled science” in order for things to move forward.

      Again, you are missing an important distinction. Those who advocate vaccines as a one-size-fits-all solution might claim it is “settled science” that vaccines are “safe and effective” for everyone, but that is demonstrably unscientific and false, as can be demonstrated by showing how what they say science says and what the published medical literature actually tells us are two completely different things. By contrast, my position is supported by literally all of the relevant scientific literature, whereas you cannot produce even a single study consistent with the belief that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist.

      Dr Kaufman came on top

      I’ve seen it. I don’t have time to rebut every point raised, but I invite you to specify what you felt his strongest argument that you felt disputed something I said, and I’ll be happy to explain to you his factual and/or logical errors.

  • >
    Share via
    Copy link