Thread by @AlisonBlunt

1/ A few quotes from a recent important article, in translation.
archive.org/details/new-3-…
'Everyone seemed to be so impressed by this fact that no one even thought of checking how the raw data on which the study is based, from which this 3D image is derived, was obtained.'

2/ 'As every scientist is aware, it is assumed that the samples have been subjected to thorough testing, in terms of necessary and obligatory control experiments [dfg.de/download/pdf/d…], isolation of the virus and its verified pathogenicity.'

3/ 'If these prerequisites have not been checked and carried out, the 3D image is merely a counterfeit without any explanatory power. It can convey purely nothing to us and cannot even remotely be considered as proof that the image is a disease-causing virus.'

4/ 'In this article we will show you what publications are involved, what has been done and that the new 3D image, of course, was "constructed" by an algorithm.'
Comment on the photos of viruses claimed to be isolated: When does a picture say nothing about the existence of..'

5/ ..'the one depicted and can only be interpreted as unscientific or even an attempt to deceive?
• if there is no scientific publication which at least states and describes that the nucleic acid has been determined from a structure shown in a photograph as evidence'

6/ • no control experiments have been carried out to confirm that the structure is not different from that assumed to exist
• if this structure has not been isolated from all other components
• e.g. the so-called HIV, measles and smallpox virus images clearly show,..'

7/ ..'as the captions themselves clearly state, that these are cells in which viruses are supposed to be present - so nothing has been isolated!
In the case of the new 3D image, which is the first "real" image to be published, none of the points just mentioned were..'

8/ ..'adhered to in the underlying studies. Just for the record: If the specified scientific criteria are missing, such a paper cannot be considered scientific.
Crucial things must be said about EM recordings in general
Structures shown in EM images and published as images ..'

9/ ..'of viruses are never biochemically characterised. No nucleic acid has ever been taken from such particles and determined. These particles are only passed off as viruses, omitting the information that the same particles of this type are also produced every time..'

10/ ..'"uninfected" cell cultures are treated in the same way as cell cultures defined as “infected." Non-virologists refer to these particles as, for example, phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, transport vesicles and, in cross-section, villi, etc.
You will see the same..'

11/ ..'representation for many differently claimed structures.
EM images always show only dead, chemically fixed matter. The image depicts soap micro-cells made of detergents, fats and proteins, preserved by freezing and perhaps only created by this freezing process.'

12/ 'Crucial here is:
1. that these images only come from cell cultures, i.e. dying tissue in a test tube, and definitely show nothing that comes from a human being,
2. that these structures have never been biochemically characterised (sic!),
3. nucleic acids, which..'

13/ ..'are supposed to be the essence of the virus, were never extracted from these structures (i.e. the nucleic acid was never extracted from a specific structure that is claimed to be a virus).'
A motionless image from electron microscopy never shows the living biological..'

14/ ..'process. What one examines under the EMs has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the biological organism of a living organism. The results from laboratories can give absolutely no information about the processes within a living organism.'

15/ 'What was really done in the crucial studies that serve as the basis for the new 3D images?
The primary study, which served as the basis, was: 'Architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus - Author Sai Li.' ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
In this study we can read which sample material ..'

16/ ..'was used, that is claimed to be sample material of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).
It is the study: Yao et. al. - "Patient-Derived Mutations Impact Pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
So we have to check what exactly was done in this study and..'

17/ ..'why it is claimed that a new virus was detected here. If this is not the case, the primary study Sai Li et. al. (which was used for the new 3D images) is automatically based on a false foundation and has no significance.
So we need to check the following points [image]

18/ 'Let's look at what was done and what was omitted in the study from which the samples were taken.
"Epidemiological exposure in Hubei Province was not a prerequisite for suspected cases. All suspected cases were identified by laboratory testing and were based on..'

19/ ..'positive qRT-PCR test results for COVID-19. Patients were excluded if two qRT-PCR tests 24 hours apart both gave negative results. Clinical samples from patients whose PCR test gave a Ct value of less than 28 were collected for isolation of SARS-Cov-2.” [image]

20/ 'We therefore understand that within the study, samples were used that resulted in a positive PCR test. We all know that a PCR test cannot detect a virus, you can read about this in one of our many articles on the PCR test.' [information & links in pdf]

21/ 'In the methods section we find the following procedure:
"The sputum, stool and nasopharyngeal swab samples were pre-processed by first mixing them with the appropriate volume (sputum, 5-10 volumes; stool, 2 ml/100 mg; nasopharyngeal swab, 1 volume) of MEM medium with ..'

22/ ..'2% FBS, amphotericin B (100 ng/ml), penicillin G (200 units/ml), streptomycin (200 μg/ml) and TPCK trypsin (4 μg/ml). The supernatant was collected after centrifugation at 3000 rpm at room temperature. Before infecting Vero-E6 cells, all collected supernatant was ..'

23/ ..'filtered using a 0.45-μm filter to remove cell debris, etc.”' medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
'Even before the cell cultures were infected, the samples were prepared with various chemicals, antibiotics and foetal bovine serum. One looks in vain for a control sample group.'

24/ '"For viral infection and isolation, 3 ml of filtered supernatant was added to Vero-E6 cells in a T25 culture flask. After incubation [the time that elapses between infection with a pathogen and the appearance of the first symptoms] at 35°C for 2h to allow binding, ..'

25/ ..'the inoculum [infectious material] was removed and replaced with fresh culture medium. The cells were incubated at 35°C [growing cell cultures or microorganisms in an incubator] and observed daily to assess cytopathic effects (CPE). The supernatant was tested..'

26/ ..'for SARS-CoV-2 by qRT-PCR (see below for qRT-PCR protocol). Once the qRT-PCR test shows positive (typically after 4-5 days of incubation), the viral particles were collected from culture supernatant by ultra-speed centrifugation (100,000x g for 2 hours) for downstream ..'

27/ ..'sequencing, infectivity assay, and observed under 200 kV Tecnai G2 electron microscope.”'
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

28/ 'The typical procedure: Cells are pre-treated with chemicals, antibiotics and fetal bovine serum and the so-called cytopathic effect (CPE) is equated with a replication of a virus. A positive PCR test is then used as a complementary confirmation.
A summary [see image]

29/ 'A fuller explanation:
1. No actual rigorous negative control has been carried out in which it is ensured that the "potentially infectious agent" or those short gene sequences from which the genetic strand of the claimed viruses is later constructed are not already present..'

30/ ..'in the starting material, the monkey kidney cells and the chemicals and nutrient solutions used. Both the introduced agents themselves, or these interacting with the cell material, or this alone, or all together with the isolate from the diseased tissue could be..'

31/ ..'responsible for the observed changes interpreted as viral and for the release of short gene sequences from which the virus genome is later constructed computationally.'

32/ '2. Virologists kill tissue in the lab unnoticed
Virologists do not use the word "isolation" in the true sense of the word isolation and become suspiciously nervous when it is mentioned to them. They understand "isolation" to mean the production of an effect in the..'

33/ ..'laboratory which they simultaneously call
a) infection
b) proof of the presence of a virus
c) proof of its multiplication
d) proof of the destructive power of the supposed virus.
In reality, they kill tissues and cells in the laboratory unnoticed and unknowingly - ..'

34/ ..'by starving and poisoning them.
This effect is known as the cytopathic effect.'

35/ '3. The alleged cultivation of the virus
This confluence is called giant cell formation and a "cytopathic effect". This result of many violent and insane steps is interpreted as central evidence of the "presence, isolation, multiplication, etc." of the suspected virus.'

36/ 'Those involved then claim that they have succeeded in cultivating the virus.
Here the compulsive logic to which virologists are subject becomes clear. This manifested itself on 10 December 1954, when John Franklin Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize for a long-standing..'

37/ ..'misinterpretation of the suspected polio virus. With the Nobel Prize of 10.12.1954, however, his speculation about the suspected measles virus, published on 1.6.1954, became a scientific fact overnight, which has not been doubted to this day. Doubt is the most important..'

38/ ..'scientific commandment and rule to avoid misinterpretations and to recognise and correct existing misinterpretations.
On 1.6.1954 Enders and his colleagues published observations according to which the death of tissues in the test tube could be regarded as the result..'

39/ ..'of the action of presumed viruses, but at
the same time refuted this presumption, since he reported that the same death of tissues in the test tube also occurred without the addition of presumed infected material. He explicitly warns that the assumption that this effect..'

40/ ..'could prove the presence of a virus must be researched and investigated in the future. As a result of the Nobel Prize of 10.12.1954 awarded to him for a different matter, the admonition and request to examine this technique and precisely not to equate it with..'

41/ ..'the presence of a virus has not been made to this day.
You will find all further details with references in our two following articles' [see image for details]

42/ 'This study also performed an alignment to construct a genome.
The alignment, the easily recognisable and essential refutation of all viral assumptions.
A method such as the alignment here, to calculate a theoretically long gene sequence from very short ones, which is..'

43/ ..'not backed up by control experiments, cannot be called scientific. This is a pretence of science, which, however, is in no way obvious, comprehensible and verifiable for everyone.
From the word alignment, every layman recognises directly that - as with all so-called..'

44/ ..' disease-causing viruses - no whole and intact genome strand, i.e. the complete genome, which is assigned to SARS-CoV-2, was found and isolated, but only very short snippets of nucleic acid were constructed into something new on the basis of an alignment. The..'

45/ ..'complete genome strand of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 allegedly consists of 29903 nucleotides according to the mental-computational alignment (Fan Wu et. al.).
To clarify: Never does the claim appear in the publications of scientists or other literature that even..'

46/ ..'an approximately complete nucleic acid (in the case of SARS-CoV-2: 29903 nucleotides long) has
been found from a (viral) structure or even from an "infected" liquid, whose determination of its molecular sequence would correspond to the whole nucleic acid that has only..'

47/ ..'been theoretically constructed. It is even the case that missing gaps (gene sequences) have to be freely invented, since the many very short gene sequences are not sufficient to construct a new genome.'

48/ 'Summary of the first study Yao et. al. - "Patient-Derived Mutations Impact Pathogenicity of
SARS-CoV-2: [medrxiv.org/content/10.110…]
- No structure or anything even close to a complete nucleic acid was found from an "infected" liquid whose determination of its molecular..'

49/ ..'sequence would correspond to the whole nucleic acid that was constructed only conceptually (29903 bp Fan Wu et. al. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/179817…]).
- The scientifically prescribed and binding control experiments were not carried out.'
..

50/ '- The cytopathic effect is not virus-specific and was also not validated by necessary control experiments. These control experiments are an absolute scientific obligation and have been mandatory for all by the DFG since at least 1998. [dfg.de/download/pdf/d…]

51/ '- The supposedly "infected" samples, which were only considered to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 because a PCR test carried out was positive, cannot themselves provide any conclusion that one is dealing with a disease-causing virus. The PCR test itself only detects 1-3% of..'

52/ ..'the mentally constructed genome. It is itself based on gene sequences that have been given and is subject to the same scientific weaknesses that we have addressed in this article.
The determination of pathogenicity in "animal experiments" or similar was also omitted.'

53/ 'So we can say with one hundred percent certainty that this study has definitely not detected a disease-causing virus. The very fact that the sample material from this study acts as a reference for the "FIRST" real 3D image actually says it all at this point: the image is..'

54/ ..'certainly not that of a disease-causing virus!
Let us now turn to the study Molecular Architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus - author Sai Li et. al. [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…]
As we have just seen, this study is based on sample material that does not derive from..'

55/ ..'a disease-causing virus. Nevertheless, we will say a few words about the study.
We read in the study in the sample details section:
"Vero cells (African green monkey kidney, ATCC CCL-81, sex unknown) for virus propagation were cultured at 37°C and 5% CO2 in..'

56/ ..'Modified Eagle Medium (MEM, Corning) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, GIBCO) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (GIBCO) in T75 culture flasks (Grenier). When cells confluence reached 90%, the cells were harvested with 0.25% trypsin-EDTA (GIBCO) and passaged..'

57/ ..'at a split ratio of 1:4.”
Method details
Sample preparation
"SARS-CoV-2 virions (ID: ZJU_5) (Yao et al., 2020) isolated from patient sputum were propagated in Vero cells (ATCC CCL-81). Sputum was diluted with 5 volumes of Modified Eagle Medium (MEM) complete medium..'

58/ ..'supplemented with 2% fetal bovine serum (FBS), amphotericin B (100 ng/ml), penicillin G (200 units/ml), streptomycin (200 μg/ml) and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min at room temperature to remove contaminants. Finally, the supernatant was collected and filtered..'

59/ ..'through a 0.45 μm filter. 3 mL of the filtered supernatant was added to Vero cells in a T25 culture flask. After incubation at 35 °C for 2 hours to allow binding, the inoculum was removed and replaced with fresh culture medium. Cells were incubated at 35 °C and observed..'

60/ ..'daily to assess cytopathic effects (CPE). The SARS-CoV-2 was tested by qRT-PCR and sequencing. To produce sufficient numbers of virus samples, viruses were propagated using Vero cells in T75 culture flasks. On the fourth day post-infection, 100 mL of cell supernatant..'

61/ ..'was cleared of cell debris at 4,000 g centrifugation for 30 min and inactivated with paraformaldehyde (PFA; final concentration 3%) for 48 h at 4°C. The supernatant was then stored at 4°C. All experiments with infectious viruses were performed in an approved biosafety..'

62/ ..'level (BSL)-3 laboratory.”
We see the same procedure as in the study before. This procedure, as we described earlier, became the scientific standard in 1954 when the Nobel Prize was awarded. Although everyone knew that this was pure speculation, it was..'

63/ ..'never questioned again (with a few exceptions).
We will now give you some examples where the necessary control results have shown that precisely this cytopathic effect is not virus-specific, but has other underlying causes.
1. One of the expert reports, which was..'

64/ ..'carried out within the measles virus trial and presented to the court, proved that the experimental set-up alone, i.e. the pre-treatment of the cell cultures themselves, leads to the cytopatic effect. (see expert opinion 3 - cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is..'

65/ ..'not specific to measles virus). [see pdf]
2. Also in the publication by Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. […lingclassobserver.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/bech-v…] Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42(1):75-85 it is described that..'

66/ ..'the cytopathic effect is not measles-specific, but is caused by other factors.
Thus, the publication states on p.80:
"cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These..'

67/ ..'changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called 'foamy agents', which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys."
This sentence is remarkable, as it points to the non-specificity of the very pathological changes that..'

68/ ..'served as the starting point for the visual evidence of infection in the first publication by Enders & Peebles.
3. Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology, Special Paper 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2)..'

69/ ..'Preprint 1999. [impfen-nein-danke.de/u/P125.pdf]
This reading is so important because it shows how necessary control experiments are in order to recognise that one was wrong. It shows that by 1953 it was clear and well known to every virologist and the scientific community ..'

70/ ..'that all the constituents that had hitherto been interpreted as constituents of viruses turned out, through control experiments, to be constituents of dead tissues and cells. This is why it is so essential to keep insisting on the lack of control experiments in the..'

71/ ..'publications presented.
4. Another aspect to be mentioned is that there is scientific knowledge that the addition of
antibiotics creates exosomes (RNA sequences) that were not present before. (Wikipedia 22.01.2021). [de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosom_(V…]

72/ ..'Edit I. Buzás, Robert Horvath, Károly Vékey, László Drahos, Sára Tóth: Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA. In: Scientific Reports. Band 7, Nr. 1, 15. August 2017, ISSN 2045-2322, S. 8202, ..'

73/ ..'doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08392-1 (nature.com [abgerufen am 31. März 2019]).
5. For the very reason that these obligatory control experiments were not carried out, this study must be classified as unscientific and is not worth the paper it was written on. ..'

74/ ..'See the rules for scientific work (lege artis) that have been bindingly codified by the DFG since 1998 [dfg.de/download/pdf/d…] and signed by all university rectors.
Crucially, here again one pelletised - not isolated - and the pelletised was not biochemically..'

75/ ..'investigated. The photos were calculated on the basis of a predefined model, which is why they do not show a real image.

Pls consider reading, downloading and sharing this auto-translated article (and independently of my censored acc!) archive.org/details/new-3-…