There are so many publications claiming that it has been isolated.
Indeed, there are many publications claiming that the virus has been isolated. This claim is usually in the title of the article, in the introduction or in some press release. However, if you look at the methodology section of the publication in question – and THAT is what you should do when you read a scientific paper – you can immediately see that none of the actual requirements that meets the criteria of isolation have ever been fulfilled.
In future articles and videos we will go into more detail on the topic of virus isolation and what it is that virologists actually do in laboratories. Here we will very roughly explain the most important procedures.
The isolation of certain particles from organic sample material has been a standard procedure in microbiology for many decades and is used to examine individual components of a sample more precisely. This isolation procedure can also be used to separate tissue (“cells”) into its constituent parts (mitochondria, cell nuclei, etc.). The procedure uses centrifugation and it’s straight forward and easy to understand.
Since isolation in its true sense never produced results for presumed disease-causing viruses – because pathogenic viruses are a mere concept and for this reason nothing can be isolated – virologists switched to a new procedure in the 1950s, which was from then on equated with isolation and is still in use today.
In this procedure, tissue is cultivated and then supposedly infected material is added in the form of saliva or blood from a sick person. If the tissue culture presents with structural changes – cytopathic effect (CPE), before or during die-off, virologists assume the presence of a virus. This assumption is then supposedly confirmed – as with almost everything in virology today – using PCR technique.
In fact, the supposed ‘infection’ is preceded by preparing the tissue culture in such a way (nutrients are removed and cell-toxic material is added) that this alone leads to its death. In order to ascribe any scientific significance to both the cytopathic effect and the death of the tissue, control experiments have to be carried out to be sure that it is not the procedure itself that is responsible for the result. These control experiments were never conducted – not withstanding many papers claiming otherwise, as for example, in the case of isolation. Note: control experiments have now been carried out which show that it is indeed the procedure itself that causes die-off.
Why then, is the killing of tissues/cells in the test tube called “isolation”?
They call it isolation as it is assumed that the supposedly infected material that is introduced from outside the laboratory and added to the tissue would fully transform the tissue into viruses – ie the tissue dies and only the virus remains.
So the whole thing has nothing whatsoever to do with actual isolation, and yet this procedure is officially validated in virology as virus proof and isolation. For this reason, “fact checkers”, TV experts and also some well-known scientists from the critic scene argue that there has indeed been an isolation.
“It is considered to be evidence, full stop! That is enough. Why do we have to concern ourselves with it any longer?”Because consensus has nothing to do with truth. It is a belief, an assumption, a theory, a wild thesis on which people have agreed and to which they ascribe a certain significance without actually being able to prove it. That’s why you should definitely look into it more closely.
Almost all papers on SARS-CoV-2 that purport to have detected the virus use the killing of cultured tissue/cell cultures and the cytopathic effect in order to make their argument. The true isolation of particles in order to accurately examine them biochemically – which should always be part of this process (after all, that is why isolation is carried out in the first place) – is now considered obsolete and no longer necessary in virology. Working with cell cultures in conjunction with PCR is now considered by virologists as more effective and just as informative. In recent textbooks on microbiology, however, this procedure is also described as obsolete. Genetic testing methods and bioinformatics are now in vogue, they say, and make isolation and other laboratory procedures unnecessary, since they consider that modern genetics produces much more accurate results. In fact, however, the exact opposite is the case! Virology is becoming increasingly theoretical, no longer producing anything tangible and regressing as a science. Computer models, ill-considered assumptions based on mere appearances, meaningless genetic testing procedures and prognoses based on hypotheses are the modern tools of virology. Exactly the same tools used in the ‘Corona Crisis.’
We are well aware that the following description is not an precise analysis of a scientific paper, but it is nevertheless a useful means for beginners to gather circumstantial evidence as to whether or not something has actually been isolated in a paper claiming viral isolation.
If you are in possession of a scientific paper on SARS-CoV-2 in PDF format, use the search function and see whether the terms “vero cells” (monkey kidney tissue) and/or “human airway epithelial cells”, “cytopathic effect” and PCR appear in the paper. If they do, then the publication most likely only used the procedure described earlier and simply killed a cultivated culture of tissues.
But there are papers which show images of isolated particles!
Here, too, the same questioning procedure is necessary: one must look at the method section of the paper and read up on how the respective photographs were taken. It is not the image that is important, but the way in which it came about! If the origin of a micrograph is not described in detail anywhere, it has no significance whatsoever.
Put simply, the micrographs that are presented as isolations of SARS-CoV-2 show nothing more than cellular debris. These are fragments of cells that are first sedimented in the test tube and then stirred up with a pipette. This process temporarily forms structures which, on the face of it, roughly correspond to the model of a coronavirus and which, with a bit of luck, can be photographed under the microscope.
In any case, the mere isolation of particles is not sufficient to prove anything. However, if one had actually managed, using correct scientific methods, to isolate particles that were strongly suspected of being of pathogenic origin, the next step would be to biochemically characterise them. None of the papers reporting supposedly isolated particles describe this process as having been conducted. In any case, this would not even be possible because such particles consist of cell debris and do not have any genetic material that could be extracted.
To cut a long story short: isolation is frequently claimed in very many articles and scientific papers, and attractive images depicting allegedly isolated particles are now a dime a dozen. But pictures without a detailed description of their creation are completely meaningless. And in the case of the documentation relating to the images, the methods used immediately reveal that they have nothing whatsoever to do with what is called “isolation” in microbiology.
We will deal with the methods of virology in detail in upcoming videos.
Your Immanuel Project team