Covid 19, Is it Actually Real?
What do scientists have to gain by “stretching the truth” or were they also coerced into tabulating false conclusions?
Based on the findings of the Nature article 15th of May 2003, and other more recent papers:
Testing for Covid 19 in the wastewater seems redundant and perhaps should be discontinued, seeing there was never any studies that actually proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sars CoV II, or Sars CoV actually existed, using the Koch’s Postulates or Rivers Postulates. The Nature magazine contained an article stating that the Sars virus (2003) proven to pass the Koch’s method, however, if you actually read the paper, they state that it is actually River’s Criterium, not Koch’s Postulates that was used, being Kochs Postulates is more stringent than Rivers. Further, Rivers criterium suggests that one can only be fairly confident, if all steps of the criterium is passed, there is a virus, not 100 percent. In fact, when mentioning River’s criterium being met, all papers show a use of genetic material (RNA, DNA), yet, Rivers Criterium does not include any steps for genetic material. And of course, by these 2003 papers own admission, only supposedly satisfied steps 1 through 3 of the River’s method. Because these papers did not include the remaining 3 steps of the River’s Criterium, the Nature article went on to say that, further research is needed, yet, somehow claimed to have satisfied the remaining 3 steps. But in actuality, failed to satisfactorily show (cite) any of the remaining steps of River’s method was properly performed. In essence, none of the River’s Criterium was satisfied by any of the papers cited in the Nature’s article. Looking at the Covid 19 studies of late (during the pandemic), these papers also failed the River’s Criterium completely.
Poutenan Paper N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1995-2005 Isolation from infected yielded negative results, did not cultivate in host cells, did not prove filterability.
Drosten Paper N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1967-1976 Isolation failed, only obtained genetic material, nothing conclusive, did not cultivate in host cells, did not prove filterability. Evidence of paramyxovirus-like particles, not conclusive.
Ksiazek Paper N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1953-1966 Failed to isolate virus, only obtained genetic material, did not cultivate in host cells, did not prove filterability.
Peiris Paper Lancet 2003; 361: 1319-25 Failed to isolate virus, only obtained genetic material, did not cultivate in host cells, did not prove filterability.
More recent: Covid 19 Papers
Peng Zhou Paper Did not meet the first three criteria, nor the 4th or 5th criteria. However, used the PCR method that only matches 80% of the so called Sars-CoV which in fact, is not conclusive, given that the difference between a human and a chimpanzee is only 4 percent genetically, given chimpanzees and humans share 96% of the same genetic sequence. Matching only 80% is conclusively inconclusive.
Zhu Paper: Did not meet the first three criteria, nor the 4th or 5th criteria. Only used the genetic method (PCR) which is inconclusive given the 20% difference.
Kim Paper: Did not meet the first three criteria, nor the 4th or 5th criteria. Used the Genetic material (PCR) which is inconclusive given the 20% difference. Contradictive Introduction (states there is evidence of the Covid 19) and conclusion stating there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion.
McMaster University Paper: Did not isolate any virus, did not cultivate hosts cell, using unspecified mammalian cells. Their Intro suggests there is evidence, however the paper was incomplete at that time and did not prove anything.
Conclusion: It would be remarkable that they actually thought that any of these studies actually proved enough evidence that would warrant a world-wide shut down. It would even be more ridiculous for the public to actually take the WHO (World Health Organization) serious ever again, being they are solely an Elitist’s funded operation and is not, nor ever been a, by the people elected body, that could legally determine anything so drastic as shutting down the entire planet, whole or in part. The sad truth is that our governments still stand behind the fabrications and lies produced in 2020 and most likely will never become accountable for the vast damages done, monetarily and health wise respectively.
