Evidence for the Rona – Solving the Riddle of Isolation

This article was written by Julie Beal and originally published at Activist Post

There is a widespread belief amongst anti-covidians that the rona has never been isolated, but this is not true. I’m probably speaking to an almost empty room here, but please stay and listen because the world is in serious trouble and the no-virus theory has led the truth movement down a dead-end alley. When you get to the end of this alley, you have to turn your back on what virologists say, which means there’s a lot less to think about because the answer to everything is, “There is no virus. It’s never been isolated!”

If you think about it, this statement is very close to “There can’t be a virus! There’s no evidence of a pandemic!” It’s only natural to think there’s no virus when you can see we’re all victims of a massive scam, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated in the same way all viruses have ever been isolated, loads of times. So have SARS-CoV and numerous other SARS-type viruses, but that doesn’t mean they’re unusually dangerous.

Isolation is actually classed as the ‘gold standard’ for proof of a virus, but there’s a lot of confusion about how this can be achieved. For instance, isolation is not the same as purification, so a virus can be isolated from a sample that hasn’t been purified. The question we should really be asking is, what do virologists mean by ‘virus’? What is it they’ve actually got? What other things do they do to prove its identity? How pure is pure? After all, viruses are said to be very similar to exosomes, so how are we ever gonna be able to tell the difference?

The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that particles come out of cells, so we need to figure out what those particles are – what they’re made of, how they got there, and the effect they have. As anti-covidians, it’s not enough to just prove whether or not there’s a virus, or whether or not it causes disease. We’re actually looking for evidence about the nature of sub-clinical infection, i.e. being able to test positive for a virus that’s NOT A THREAT TO HUMANITY!!!

If the evidence reveals that there is a virus that can cause disease, and is deadly sometimes, we need to find out HOW OFTEN this happens. You might have to re-think your concept of ‘virus’ a bit, so that you see it as a chunk of genetic material, rather than a disease-causing organism. Most viruses do no harm. Our bodies are said to be full of them, as well as bacteria, and apparently, our guts are colonized by many of the same species as our pets! Me and my dogs will have a different set of organisms to you and your cats! But these organisms rarely cause illness – that only happens when you get out of balance…

Anyhow, the only way we can find any answers to our questions about the particles is to use the evidence presented by virologists. First, we seek to understand how the chunk is detected, so we can learn from the tests they do, and then after that we seek to understand if the chunk does damage, and if so, how much. That’s a separate enquiry, and for that we will call on evidence from doctors and epidemiologists.

Another way to think about it is like this – if, as some people claim, all viruses are ‘death particles’ or ‘just exosomes’, how can this be proven? We need to know what tools exist that allow us to study these particles, so we can settle the argument once and for all.

“It’s never been isolated!”

Big Pharma is a business that profits from ill health and it’s been corrupted from the start, thanks to Rockefeller. It promotes an extremist ideology that compartmentalizes the body, disables it with chemicals, and ignores the concept of balance. Germ theory versus terrain theory is a false dichotomy and the truth is somewhere in the middle, which is also where we find the truth about virus-based vaccines.

These are all good reasons to doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is actually real, and to think that we’ve all been conned, especially after what happened with HIV and swine flu, but none of them prove that viruses do not exist at all. Nonetheless, the no-virus theory has permeated the anti-covidian community, and it’s based on the claim that the rona has never been isolated or purified. So if this is true, how should it be done? Most people don’t offer an explanation, but the ‘SOVI Declaration’ contains instructions on the ‘right’ way to do these things, so let’s take a look at it and see where it’s going wrong. It begins:

• “In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) ….” The problem with this statement is that only some viruses are blood-borne (e.g. HIV, Hepatitis, and Zika virus) whereas SARS-type viruses are found mainly in the respiratory system, in the tissues. However, collecting large amounts of sputum isn’t a doddle because you’d have to wait for the patient to gob up a lump of phlegm. As for what ‘secretions’ might be, the mind runs riot! All you can really do is wipe a swab around the nose, mouth and throat, unless there’s an opportunity to go a bit deeper and scrape a bit of tissue out.
• “… from many people (e.g. 500)….” Even if all patients were super-snotty, it would take time to collect samples from 500 people, and then there’s the issue of how to store them while you collect the others. Also, 500 lots of sputum will be a complex mixture of different kinds of genetic material!
• “… with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness.” Absolutely.
• “Without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material….” This is will be covered in the article below, but basically the sample has to be kept ‘alive’, which means adding nutrients.
• “… the virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifugese. purifies the specimen.” Virologists use the word ‘lyse’ rather than macerate, but yes, the whole lot is broken down, filtered, and centrifuged. Other methods also exist, but note, this stage is always done AFTER cultivating the specimen in a cell culture because that’s the only way to have enough to study.
• “This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab…” Bacteriophages are cultured in bacteria and giant viruses weren’t discovered until 2003!
• “… then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles.” Yes, but they’re not all exactly the same, just like people aren’t.
• “These particles are the isolated and purified virus.” Are there any examples of such a virus?

The Meaning of the Word ‘Virus’

The people who define the word ‘virus’ are the people who study and describe the stuff that comes out of cells; according to virologists, a virus is something that exists inside a cell, and when it is there, it makes copies of itself and sends them out of the cell in a poof! of tiny particles. These little particles are called virions, and they’re the things you see in the pictures, like the ones that show a coronavirus with a crown, or spiky projections. But the thing they call virus is what is inside a cell, so some virologists describe a virus as being less like a thing, and more like a process.

A virologist called Bandea suggested that the infected cell IS the virus, because by the time it’s inside a cell, the two are united and work as one. It’s all just a question of semantics really, but the key point is that a virus doesn’t exist for long; its life-cycle is very short and it’s something that only happens when inside a cell of some kind. A virus is a happening. It is an event, a process that takes place inside of a cell. The happening is quick and it depends entirely on the cell. The happening transforms the cell so that it becomes part of the happening. They cannot be separated; they are one and the same.

Viruses cannot exist in isolation

No living thing can ever be truly isolated from other living things. They must all stay connected in order to stay alive. Nature is a large mesh of molecules and every living thing is a part of that mesh – nothing exists in isolation. The only way to survive in this mesh of molecules is to find our niche and then adapt to it, and this continuous process of adaptation is who and what we are. It’s what life is.

Certain things live in certain places and taking them out of their niche and putting them into a different environment will change those things into something different. How much they change will depend on how much the environment changes – so when something is separated or isolated away from its niche, we need to be aware of how it might be affected.

Taking a sample

Some viruses can only be found in the lungs or whatever so if you wanted to get a big clump of cells from a patient you’d have to do a full-on biopsy, or take pieces of tissue after they die. Like flowers cut from a garden, cells taken from a person’s body will soon die off unless they’re kept artificially alive. You can put flowers in a vase of water but they won’t last long, and it’s much the same with cells taken as a specimen from a patient.

Why you can’t use cells from a patient to study viruses

The moment the cells are removed from the patient, they cease to be part of their natural environment and will soon die unless they’re put on life-support. You have to try and make sure the cells keep dividing and doubling, because if they stop dividing they’re dead, along with everything that’s inside them. What’s more, even if you give them nutrients and keep them in a stable environment, it won’t be long before the cells “undergo a crisis”, then senesce and die. This is why scientists have ended up using cells from cancer patients, aborted babies, and a wide range of animals. These vaguely-representative cells are widely used by the monster that is biotech, i.e. they’re not just used to propagate viruses.

A healthy meal?

To make sure cells keep on replicating, you have to try and feed them. You can’t exactly give them a three-course meal, but scientists reckon the best way to keep them alive and free of bacteria is by feeding them a mixture of nutrients and antibiotics. Cell cultures are used for loads of different things, and for decades now, the standard formula for nutrients has been to combine fetal bovine serum (from a baby cow) with a full spectrum of amino acids and vitamins.

Cells are grown in an incubator and maintained at an appropriate temperature and supplemented with CO2. “The culture conditions widely vary depending up on the cell type. Growth media can vary in pH[i], glucose concentration, growth factors, and the presence of other nutrients depending up on the cell types.” Cells are also often modified to be more suitable for use as a cell culture, such as the HEK293 cell line which merges fragments of a viral genome with the genome of a human baby to create an ‘immortalised’ cell line.

It now looks like something out of a sci-fi movie rather than a person’s throat or whatever, and it’ll just stay like that and keep on churning out the stuff that’s in the specimen. The particles that are able to adapt to their new environment can be cloned again in the next cell culture, and from here on in, that’s pretty much the way they’re gonna stay.[ii]

……. “… an established cell line is a valuable resource and its replacement is expensive and time consuming”…..

Staying Alive

As we can see, cells are nurtured to keep them fit for purpose – if they just died off, they’d be unusable. They need to be alive in order to perform experiments or to grow products for sale.

When a sample believed to contain virus is added to a culture, virologists are looking to see if the cells start dying, something that’s called ‘a cytopathic effect’. This general term is used to describe the damage and mayhem experienced by some of the cells, and it’s said to be evidence of a virus.

Stefan Lanka has promoted the idea that virologists deliberately poison cell cultures with FBS, DMEM and antibiotics in order to create viruses. He believes these culture media are toxic when in fact they are used to keep the cell cultures alive. Lanka portrays all virologists as crazed lunatics who are deliberately deceiving the public, and says that, ‘in reality’, viruses are nothing more than particles that come from cells being poisoned.

However, particles released from dying cells are known in the trade as ‘apoptotic bodies’, and they’ve been studied extensively, along with a load of other stuff that comes out of cells, such as exosomes and exomeres. Also, viruses generally have different shapes and appearances.

Lanka’s trump card, the one he says proves he is absolutely correct, is that virologists never do control experiments with viruses, but they do! And they were done by the people who claimed to have discovered the rona! They’re called mock-infections or mock-inoculations. These control experiments involve comparing cells with virus to cells without virus, to see if there’s a difference.[iii]

Mock-infected cells are defined as, “A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.”

“Cytopathic effects (CPEs) are distinct observable cell abnormalities due to viral infection”, e.g. changes in cell shape from flat to round, or shrinkage of the nucleus.  Virologists have documented the different cytopathic effects associated with different viruses (some examples can be seen in Table 1 here).

Take the CPE challenge!

Have a look at the twelve pictures of cells here – most of them are infected with various different viruses, but four of them are not! Without cheating, scroll slowly through the pictures and see if you can tell which ones do not show CPE! The first researchers to isolate and purify the rona were Zhang et al from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, so it’s important to note that they did perform control experiments. Here are the images provided by the WIV, two of which are of mock-infected cells. And here are the pictures provided by the American CDC to show the difference between mock-infected cells and cells infected with the first American SARS-CoV-2 isolate.[iv]

So if the rona isn’t the result of dying cells, and it’s not caused by the stuff used to keep the cells alive, what about the effect of the cells themselves?

The Changing Behaviour of SARS-CoV-2

The rona behaves slightly differently depending on what kind of cells its grown in. In fact, it’s rather fussy about where it lives – one study on the rona[v] tried growing it in 34 different kinds of cell lines, but it only worked in seven of them. Six of these cell lines came from monkeys and one was from a human cell line called ‘Caco-2’[vi]. All of the monkey cells exhibited CPE, but none of the human cell lines did – not even Caco-2.[vii] This type of experiment demonstrates that viruses are dependent on their habitat, and it also shows they can exist without killing the cells they’re in.

After isolation comes purification

The cells that viruses are cultured in contain various types of genetic material which are classed as contaminants. For a start, they’re all pumping out exosomes on a continual basis, and secondly, cells have various types of debris in them, so when scientists are trying to prove they’ve found a new type of virus, they have to purify the isolate to remove contaminants. This is usually achieved by filtering it and putting it in a centrifuge (as described in the footnote below), and my next article will describe how it was performed by the people who ‘discovered’ the rona.

After that will be three long articles about RT-PCR tests! The no-virus crew are mistaken about how they’re used for genetic sequencing, so that’s one thing to highlight, but the main reason I’ve written them is so we can learn how to decipher the results ourselves. We need more knowledge at our disposal and it’s not enough to just say all RT-PCR tests are useless and run for too many cycles. It’s true but it’s not enough because there’s more to it than that, and it helps in assessing autopsy results.

The rona seems to be real and was probably created on purpose

Even if it’s been isolated, and it really does exist, for most people the rona is NOT highly pathogenic, and this is NOT a crazy-dangerous pandemic. Proof of a virus is not proof of a deadly virus, nor is it proof of a naturally-occurring virus!!!

But it might be proof of a lab-made virus. After all, the rona is just the kind of virus that was needed for the Reset to work – the technocrats know their system will only work when we are all tagged with a global ID, and the vax are a way to enforce it, so what they needed was a virus that would make people test positive whilst being mostly asymptomatic, because that’s the only way they could say there’s a need to identify the infected or unvaxed. If covid was obvious, you could just look at someone to see if they were ill or not, and an ID would be a waste of time.

Right now, it seems like the vax are designed to kill us, and maybe they are, but there’s no doubt the ID system is extremely important to the technocrats because the Reset won’t work without it. They have a plan for how the world will operate, and there’s also NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Big Pharma intends be re-born as a genetic monster, which leads me to believe it’s unlikely they’d want to use a genetic vaccine to depopulate the world. It’s very bad publicity and all under a spotlight. The ID can kill people in a much more targeted way by removing the dissidents, then war and famine will remove the stragglers.

Notes:

[i] For example, it’s important to keep checking the pH of mammalian cells because lactic acid can build up and affect the way the cells grow.

[ii] Cell lines in continuous culture are prone to genetic drift, which affects the stuff that’s being grown in it, such as causing mutations.

[iii] See footnote in previous article re Lanka’s so-called control experiments.

[iv] The American isolate is also available for sale – SARS-CoV-2 Purified Viral Lysate is being sold by the Native Antigen Company. The isolate has been purified using sucrose density gradient ultracentrifugation: “The cell culture supernatant is added to a density gradient and ultracentrifuged until distinct bands are formed. Whole viruses have a different density to free proteins and cell debris, forming a recognisable band at a specific density.” Having ‘isolated’ and ‘purified’ this thing they call virus, they then deliberately cripple it by disrupting and inactivating it. The cell culture is monitored for signs of CPE to make sure the viruses have been inactivated: “All lysate samples must demonstrate no CPE to verify inactivation of the product.”

[v] Cell cultures are chosen for their ability to grow viruses that produce a cytopathic effect. Gillim-Ross et al tested the ability of multiple human and animal cell lines to see if they could be used to cultivate SARS-CoV and they got the best results from Vero cells – they produced the most virus, and they were the only cell type that exhibited a cytopathic effect: “Vero E6 cells produced the highest titer of SARS-CoV, and this was the only cell line that demonstrated CPE.” Some of the other cell types also supported the growth of SARS-CoV viruses, but “CPE was absent”. For instance, they tried using monkey kidney cells, and the human cell lines HEK-293T and Huh-7, and the SARS-CoV virus replicated successfully in all of them, but did not cause a cytopathic effect.

[vi]According to Wikipedia, “Caco-2 is an immortalized cell line of human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells. It is primarily used as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier. In culture, Caco-2 cells spontaneously differentiate into a heterogeneous mixture of intestinal epithelial cells.”

[vii] The effects observed were varied, “ranging from lysis of the cell monolayer in 48–72 h to no cytopathic effect in spite of intense multiplication, as in Caco-2 cells. Interestingly, effect and multiplication varied widely according to the strain tested.” So why did different stains have different effects? What would happen to animals if they were challenged with the strain grown in Caco-2? Images of some of these cells are included in the study in order to demonstrate the morphological changes observed – the images labelled A, C, E, G, and I are all non-infected cell lines.