Upon questioning whether I was among those who denied the very existence of COVID, I replied that while I wasn’t necessarily prepared to explicitly deny it, neither am I willing to resolutely affirm it. Is SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is said to be the cause of COVID-19, a real thing? To know for certain that it exists, one must follow the science. Writes Jack Kerwick
Recently, I had a conversation with someone who endorses the conventional wisdom on COVID. The woman was friendly and intelligent. However, as readers of this column know, I have been at pains over the last year to expose, by way of at least a couple of dozen essays, the flagrant contradictions, misconceptions, unsubstantiated claims, and outright lies that constitute the Official Narrative.
So, the friendly and intelligent women and I disagreed.
Upon questioning whether I was among those who denied the very existence of COVID, I replied that while I wasn’t necessarily prepared to explicitly deny it, neither am I willing to resolutely affirm it. Is SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is said to be the cause of COVID-19, a real thing? To know for certain that it exists, one must follow the science.
Has the existence of “the Virus” been established according to a universally acknowledged set of scientific procedures that must be observed to establish the existence of any and all other viruses?
From the sounds of it, the answer is a resounding no.
Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Sally Fallon Morell, are among those who have noted in a paper published last year that in demonstrating the existence of a new virus, samples must, firstly, be taken from the blood, phlegm, or other secretions of hundreds of people exhibiting symptoms that are “unique and specific enough to characterize an illness.”
Then, “without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters, and ultracentrifuges, i.e. purifies the specimen.” This, the authors explain, is a “common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages [viruses that infect bacteria and reproduce within them] and so-called giant viruses [a virus larger than typical bacteria].”
Thirdly, once virologists perform this procedure, they are then able to “demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles.” The latter are “the isolated and purified virus.”
Fourthly, upon determining the purity of these particles, virologists are able to examine their “structure, morphology, and chemical composition [.]”
Fifthly, “the genetic makeup” of the particles [the virus] “is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from” them and “using genetic-sequencing techniques” that have long been in existence.
Finally, an analysis must be conducted to prove that “these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin” as viruses are held to be and not just “the normal breakdown of products of dead and dying tissues.”
The authors conclude: “If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, genetically-sequenced an exogenous virus particle” (all emphases in the foregoing quotations added).
They add that nowhere in the literature does it show that any of these steps have been taken with respect to SARS-CoV-2.
Neither—and this is crucial—have the scientific steps for determining that SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of a disease, COVID-19, been taken. What are these steps? There really isn’t much to it:
A group of healthy subjects, typically animals, is first exposed to “this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted.”
Subsequently, virologists will wait to determine whether these subjects fall ill with “the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings [.]” If so, “one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease.” In other words, the “infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent” will have been demonstrated.
Again, according to the authors, nothing like this has been performed to show that there is a virus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes what has become known as COVID-19.
An ever growing number of citizen journalists in over ten different countries from around the world have, via the Freedom of Information Acts of their respective homes, requested from scores of health agencies an account of the process by which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated (i.e. separated out from all other stuff). To date, no account has been provided.
To repeat, I’m not willing to say that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and that it is not the cause of COVID-19. Just because something hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean that it has been proven not to exist. It is, however, worth noting, particularly for those who are fond of advertising their self-styled commitment to Science, that the scientific method that exists for determining the existence of viruses and their causal connection to diseases has apparently not been observed here. There are lots of assumptions, perhaps even some reasonable assumptions.
Yet the Science to which the guardians and promoters of the Official COVID Narrative are forever appealing they would have the rest of us think is an infallible set of stone-cold objective truths—not assumptions.
But if all of this is true, some may be inclined to ask, then how is it that the PCR test has determined so many cases, and what is it from which so many people have gotten sick and died? In future articles, both of these questions will be answered.