4. Hunting for a virus: Defining a disease via hypothetical viral presence

Let us now return to our narrative. Lower respiratory tract samples were collected for virus sequencing, and the presence of a new virus in these samples was proclaimed on 21 December 2019.

This claim was made on the basis of four samples.[1] No generalization can be made on such scarce data, especially as no amount of precaution can eliminate errors. They creep in at every step of the process used, that of “next-generation sequencing [NGS]”,[2] notably handling and storage.[3] The sequencing was done in one of the more than forty-six Life Sciences start ups in Wuhan, the Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology Co., Ltd., founded in 2018, heavily invested in by Volcanics Venture, a venture capital firm founded in 2016. Gene sequencing is now big business, whose aim is profit. Whether this is compatible with a proper scientific approach may well be asked.

The viral cause was investigated without ensuring that it remains a cause in the absence of other phenomena. Namely, not all other possible causes were ruled out.

This was the case of interstitial diseases, which cover some 100 lung disorders, or acute alveolar diseases, including pulmonary edema. In fact, later autopsies conducted in other parts of the world imply that death is largely due to “Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation or Pulmonary Thrombosis”.[4] [5] Every year, blood clots in the lungs kill 1 in 4 worldwide, i.e. some 10 million, of which some 60 000 to 100 000 in the U.S..[6]

Neither were all “pathogens” thought to cause pneumonia” ruled out, only “common” ones.[7] Pneumonia, or more generally respiratory diseases, including severe forms, can be caused by hundreds of drugs,[8] even common ones.[9] Was it verified whether the patients in question had been taking them, especially in environmental conditions as in Wuhan at the time that are perfect incubators of such diseases? For pneumonia can also be caused by inhalation or ingestion of a number of toxins in the form of liquids, gases, small particles such as dust or fumes.[10] These were disregarded. The level of PM2.5 had, as previously noted, reached particularly dangerous levels. In January 2020, it was “observed by randomly taking one day as a sample … that the area with the highest level of air pollution in Wuhan was Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market”,[11] where three of the seven patients admitted to the Hubei Provincial Hospital in December were from.[12] Yet no connection was made with any prevalence of pneumonia.

In fact no environmental factor appears to have been considered. For it could be that under sudden even slowly worsening conditions, known diseases become more severe. In point of fact, a new causative environmental agent was introduced less than two month previously, but it was not thought of.

By mid-October 2019, “1580 5G base stations were activated” in Wuhan, and 10 000 were expected to be by the end of 2019 in Hubei province.[13] Manmade electromagnetic fields (EMF) differ from natural ones,[14] the reason for their adverse biological effects on living organisms, in particular humans, as is known since 2015.[15] Regarding 5G in particular, the European EMF guideline 2016 recognizes that it can cause fatigue and flu-like symptoms.[16] Loss of taste or smell,[17] and all the symptoms alleged to be that of covid-19 are known to be those of radiation, especially 5G radiation sickness.[18]

Instead the Chinese Studies went on to attribute a viral cause to a disease whose clinical symptoms could not be clearly distinguished from other diseases.  They did so by following the methodology described in section 3, although it has been known to be inappropriate for this aim since the 1950s. The particles observed were declared to be a virus and named Sars-Cov-2 because as stated in the reference paper published on 23 January 2020 on which subsequent studies are based, the amplified segments suggested that the “genome sequences obtained from five patients” could be inferred to be “almost identical to each other” and  79.5% identical to the sequence of SARS-CoV.[19]

Using PCR methods (see next chapter), humans are said to share 90% of their DNA with cats and 96% with chimpanzees. The fact that the genomes from the patients are not identical could actually be indicating that no one microorganism has been identified and could be a confirmation that no disease has been clinically identified with clear similar symptoms in all cases. In the same vein, partial corroboration with some segments considered to be part of an alleged Sars virus, cannot lead us to conclude the segments of the study are in any way of the Sars family, and thus of a viral nature. Additionally, in the former case of Sars-Cov-1 no virus has so far been isolated, purified or identified. This is confirmed by a variety of evidence.[20] Transferring information from an unidentified virus to another unidentified one is an unreliable method. It is not even possible to gauge the errors involved, all the more so, given the previously stated issue with PCR.

Claims that whatever has been labelled Sars-Cov-2 originates in bats are equally based on genome comparisons, according to which “96% identical [is] at the whole genome level to a bat coronavirus”.[21] It would be imprudent from this near but not total similarity to conclude that something has jumped any species barriers. Otherwise we should infer that humans and chimpanzees are the same.

As for the Lancet paper co-authored by Dr Zhang Jixian published on 24 January 2020 on clinical symptoms it is based on only 41 patients hospitalized in Wuhan by 2 January 2020, 13 of which had “underlying diseases”[22], who were chosen on the assumption they were infected by SARS-CoV-2, based on a PCR laboratory test on which such a conclusion cannot be made. They were given antiviral treatment. These are known to weaken the immune system. For instance, tamiflu, supposed to prevent the flu, may actually provoke “cough or other respiratory problems”.[23] Namely, these drugs “can trigger precisely the same symptoms that they profess to fight.” The patients were also given cortisone, which have yet another set of issues.[24] It cannot be ruled out that the medication given might have contributed to the death of 6 of the patients.

In fact, all later studies[25] [26] too appear to have used the same methodology. Thus to date, no virus can be claimed to have been isolated, only bits of genetic material have been obtained. In short, there is no “paper that shows an electron micrograph of this so-called reproduced virus” or for that matter of any pathogenic virus. Logic tells us that the virus needs to be beforehand precisely determined through “direct observation” to be able to estimate whether or not the segment is from the virus,[27] not the other way round, especially given that exosomes and whatever are supposed to be viruses are indistinguishable.

A major article[28] whose press release[29] claims it too has isolated the full genome of the virus, acknowledges that it could not eliminate some known pathogens: it “remains unclear whether these pathogens have a role as causative factors or cofactors in SARS.” It even warns that “One should bear in mind, however, that in the past, viruses have been initially isolated from patients with a specific disease but subsequent investigations revealed no actual association at all. Thus, larger studies with appropriate control groups are needed to verify or eliminate our hypothesis about the cause of SARS.”[30]

In other words, “agreement in absence” has not been evidenced. Neither has “agreement in presence”. How can they be evidenced when the clinical symptoms of the disease in question are unclear?

  1. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
  2. Ibid.
  3. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1659-6
  4. https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/autopsies-prove-death-by-disseminated-intravascular-coagulation-or-pulmonary-thrombosis
  5. Confirmed independently by private email by a Dutch epidemiologist and specialist of lung diseases
  6. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/08/17/after-years-of-decline-death-rate-from-lung-clots-on-the-rise
  7. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415629/
  9. https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20150303/common-class-of-drugs-may-be-linked-to-pneumonia-risk
  10. https://www.webmd.com/lung/chemical-pneumonia
  11. https://www.khmertimeskh.com/688880/polluted-air-could-be-an-important-cause-of-wuhan-pneumonia/
  12. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3279/htm
  13. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-10/31/c_138517734.htm
  14. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107282190822431/Panagopoulos-Man-Made%20EMR%20is%20Not%20Quantized-Nova%202018-chapter.pdf
  15. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
  16. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10910251701394/EUROPAEM%20EMF%20Guideline%202016%20for%20the%20prevention%20and%20treatment%20of%20EMF-related%20health%20problems.pdf
  17. https://emfportal.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-5g-radiation/
  18. https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-and-radiation-sickness-have-same-deadly-symptoms-coincidence/
  19. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v1
  20. Engelbrecht, T. et al. 2007. Virus Mania. Translated by Megan Chapelas, Danielle Egan. Victoria, Ca.: Trafford
  21. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v2
  22. https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/
  23. https://www.rxlist.com/tamiflu-side-effects-drug-center.htm
  24. Engelbrecht, T. et al. 2007. Virus Mania. Translated by Megan Chapelas, Danielle Egan. Victoria, Ca.: Trafford
  25. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
  26. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v1
  27. Engelbrecht, T. et al. 2007. Virus Mania. Translated by Megan Chapelas, Danielle Egan. Victoria, Ca.: Trafford
  28. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa030747
  29. https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/institut-pasteur-sequences-whole-genome-coronavirus-2019-ncov
  30. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa030747