have labs purified the virus? - Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei

Steven Avery

Jul 5, 2020 6:10 PM
Reply to Anton Worter

You might have had this “silent/happy hypoxia” condition. That is where irradiation with millimetre microwaves has inhibited the function of your red blood cells (see: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mX1fSrTzvWIxJBOC0Q8POLD0XhBQSpDv ). Oxygen is remaining in blood plasma instead of being readily taken up by haemoglobin. This will cause oxidative stress throughout your body for as long as it persists. I don’t think exercise was the right thing to do. It is probably just as well you didn’t go into hospital though… they would likely put an oximeter on your finger which would give an abnoramlly low reading (it can’t detect oxygen in blood plasma), which they would then wrongly interpret as being a sign of impending respiratory failure and put you on a ventilator which would then kill you. Oxygen therapy would just exacerbate the oxidative stress… what you would really need is anti-oxidant therapy, i.e. hydroxychloroquine or methylene blue or high-dose vitamin C. The condition may wear off overtime by itself though… as long as you are able to avoid the irradiation that is. Using any mobile phone or wifi device allows your position to be triangulated making you open to attack from the millimetre microwave beam weapons that have been set up all over the place.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter

Bristol University

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]


It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.

But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.

Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.

And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:

RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”


All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”


This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:

positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Jeremy R. Hammond argues that there has been "isolated" virus.

Soon thereafter, though, CDC researchers did isolate the virus, as discussed in the May 5 document. ... such as the many studies in which scientists from all over the world describe isolating and whole genome sequencing SARS-CoV-2, or this international database of genome sequences.
SARS-CoV-2 Viral Culturing at CDC

Here is the supposed CDC culturing:

Volume 26, Number 6—June 2020
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States

we describe isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from a patient who had coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the United States and described its genomic sequence and replication characteristics. ... 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) ... 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.

Analyzed and torn apart here:

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
Dean Michael JAckson
Aug 11, 2020 6:15 AM

Well, doesn’t that sound convincing? Washington Sate and the CDC seem to have clinched the identity of a novel viral pathogen, wouldn’t you say? Oh…wait one moment here! What’s that? Swab? Huh? Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens? Back of the nasal and oral cavities! Can you say contamination? How does the CDC rule out contamination with other viruses? The CDC says, “To confirm that no other respiratory viruses were present, we performed Fast Track Respiratory Pathogens 33 Testing.” Good job, CDC! And of course, tests were conducted to rule out bacterial or fungal infection too. Right? No? That’s not proper procedure, CDC! How did you miss it?

You tested positive for a bacterial infection, not a virus (let alone the fake COVID-19 virus), precisely what the CDC is refusing to control for; the CDC also didn’t rule out fungal infection, but that’s unlikely to be the cause for illnesses being misdiagnosed as COVID-19.

Dean Michael Jackson
Aug 13, 2020 5:07 AM

How did I miss it! My only excuse is I’m not a physician, so it took a week to slowly sink in. What am I referring to, you ask? Well, for context first read my comment posted August 5th. ....

To confirm that no other respiratory viruses were present, we performed Fast Track Respiratory Pathogens 33 Testing.

What I missed was, what if Patient X did have multiple viruses? Get it? Yeah…if Patient X had even only two viruses, how would the CDC know which virus was the virion causing the illness? Now you get it! The only way to determine which is the virion, is to perform a blood culture. Then again, maybe both viruses are virions, but that would only be assessed by a blood culture too. And here’s another afterthought…the PCR ‘test’, as currently administered, doesn’t identify multiple virions, multiple diseases. If you test positive for COVID-19 (which doesn’t exist, of course), God Bless you don’t have an even more serious virion, or even a more serious bacterial/fungal infection of the type that takes weeks or months to recuperate from if not immediately diagnosed and treated; malicious diseases will significantly lower the immune system’s defenses, allowing for opportunistic co-infections to take place. ... (continues)


The PCR is worthless as a diagnostic tool, as the CDC knows when it conspired with Washington State to not rule out bacterial/fungal infection with Patient X.


The fake coronavirus and the missing study: the secret in plain sight
Jon Rappoport.

It looks like Hammond may have a chronological point contra Rappoport, but he is also relying on the common misunderstandings that are refuted above.

Here he just puts out a grab-bag of papers that come up on his search sequence
"isolation whole genome sequencing sars-cov-2" worthless, as we know from above


Genomic epidemiology of novel coronavirus - Global subsampling

However, if this Global listing is all based on computer simulations and fabrications, it proves nuttin.
Last edited: