Principia Scientific International
Freedom of Information Law (FOIA) and written admissions by authorities about the COVID19 virus by several English-speaking governments reveals that NONE have successfully isolated and proven the existence of the novel coronavirus. Herein we explain the unresolved scientific issues that render this pandemic a massive hoax.
Yesterday Principia Scientific International revealed that Britain, Ireland, the United States and New Zealand had admitted their lack of evidence for COVID19. Our science and medical experts thus determined that, absent any official and verifiable laboratory proof of a novel virus, there can be no realistic prospect of a vaccine to defend against it.
Supporting our conclusion is data for excess deaths in the US and UK and other nations, this indicates nothing abnormal from excess mortality numbers in 2019/20 compared to previous years. We know that in the UK influenza and pneumonia contributed to more weekly deaths than Covid-19. While Sweden, which had no wholesale lockdown policy, reports fewer deaths.
With no verified laboratory isolation showing a ‘gold standard’ of a novel virus plus no evidence of a severe impact from such a ‘deadly’ new coronavirus then there can be no scientific basis for continuation of lockdown policies, which even the World Health Organization admits are not helping. We are therefore calling out this pandemic as a hoax.
One of Principia Scientific’s own experts, Dr Saeed Qureshi, who spent decades working as a specialist in the field of government health and laboratory testing, has been revealing the lack of any ‘gold standard’ for this pathogen since last summer. In his expert opinion the isolation and characterization of the virus (SARS-CoV2) does not exist.
We named and shamed one university already for falsely declaring it has isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
We are urging everyone to be watchful of false claims and twisted scientific presentations. In this article we asked Dr Qureshi to add more detail for new readers on this developing aspect of the pandemic. He writes:
It is common sense and logical to expect that if existence of some material is claimed then it presence must be established using valid and well-recognised practices and laws of science. For example if it is suggested that certain geographical area may provide significant amount of useful mineral such as gold or oil then that mineral must be extracted, isolated and characterized before proceeding for its large scale production for the public benefit and commercial gains. The same understanding has to be applied in other areas including the medical and pharmaceutical areas. For example, at present the world is alleged to be in the grip of a serious and wide spread disease (pandemic) referred to as COVID-19 caused by a virus labelled as SARS-CoV2. Hence, there is an urgent need for a treatment of this disease. It is important to note that medical community has declared apparently with certainty that disease (COVID-19) exists and is caused by the virus SARS-CoV2.
It should then be logical to assume that medical science or scientists must have extracted, isolated and characterised the virus and its disease (COVID-19) – however, apparently not! There have been some reports describing isolation and characterization of the virus which, scientifically speaking, are not only false but outright deceitful [1, 2, 3]. This situation is explained here by critically evaluating one of such publications.
“Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia [3].
Concerning the false claim, the direct and short answer could be found in the text of the article itself, i.e. “In consultation with the World Health Organization, the viral isolate was shared with domestic and international reference laboratories within 24 hours, and lodgement with major North American and European culture collections for further distribution is underway”.
The title of the article states “isolation of novel corona virus”, while the text describes it as “viral isolate”. These two terms are very different. Isolation of virus means extraction of virus in its purest form. On the other hand, viral isolate means – a culture/mixture/soup of various things with virus present as one of its components. An isolate is generally a mixture of known and unknown components. An analogy would be – molasses is an isolate of sugarcane or sugar but does not represent (pure) sugar. Even the presence of the virus in culture cannot be established without comparing it with a prior and independently isolated and characterised SARS-CoV2 itself. Therefore, the title of the publication and its claims regarding virus should be considered false and dodgy.
Reviewing the study/publication in further detail would clearly show lack of logic and underlying science for the isolation and characterization of the virus.
The study describes that the isolate was obtained or harvested from a patient admitted to the hospital with the following symptoms – fever (38.1°C), a cough with sputum production, O2 saturation 94% and with progressive dyspnoea. Other usual routine clinical tests showed elevated readings.
Intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g/day) and azithromycin (500 mg/day) were commenced on admission day 4 to treat potential secondary bacterial pneumonia. The patient gradually improved; fever, productive cough and dyspnoea resolved by admission day 12, and he was discharged from hospital.
The question is why this patient was suspected and tested for SARS-CoV2. The patient appeared to have usual and routine symptoms of flu or infection which was being treated with antibiotics (ceftriaxone and azithromycin) leading to patient’s recovery. However, as reported, test was performed for SARS-CoV2 and as follows:
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples: A nasopharyngeal swab and sputum collected on presentation were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real time RT-PCR assay. No virus was detected in urine samples or in single faecal or plasma samples. Note here that RT-PCR test is for testing RNA/DNA not for virus. A RNA or DNA is like filament in a light bulb, albeit an important and critical component, but is not a light bulb. Making claim that virus was detected and establish is false and incorrect. In addition, the RT-PCR test is a non-specific and notoriously known and accepted for its false positive and negative outcomes [4]. It is a non-validated test which cannot even detect relevant RNA or DNA correctly. Therefore, in reality, an assumption was made here that patient (single patient, n=1) has the particular virus which would be SARS-CoV2 and a non-specific and irrelevant RT-PCR virus-test was applied to establish this assumption.
The procedure of obtaining viral isolate, as described in the publication, may be considered as a vague narration of typical chemical polymerization process while monitoring all the steps and progressions using again the invalid RT-PCR test. In short, scientifically speaking, there is indeed no evidence that virus was present and/or isolated. Showing pictures of electron microscope by highlighting “virus-like” spherical bodies with spikes do not demonstrate or establish presence of the SARS-CoV2 virus.
A true isolation or extraction of virus means obtaining a physical sample of pure virus (particles) in a test tube or vial. The virus has to be characterised with standard and well-recognised physical and chemical tests providing detailed description such as: physical characteristics; dimensions, there-dimensional structure and layering/coating; chemical composition including elemental analyses for the whole virus and its individual components such as RNA, DNA, proteins, lipids etc.; and spectral analysis including IR, UV, NMR and MS profiles along with a stability profile.
This extracted and well characterized (reference) virus should then be used in analytical labs for the development of analytical methods or tests to be able to quantitatively measure its content in different biological matrixes such as blood and tissues of animals and humans. This reference virus, well-characterized and quantifiable, is then be used by virologists, physicians, microbiologists, infection experts, among others, to produce and reproduce the infection (COVID-19) in biological models including animals and humans with specific and quantifiable symptoms.
There is nothing of this sort is described in literature including the publication under discussion. It is not clear how and on what basis scientists are claiming that the virus has been isolated. It is very important to note that isolation and characterization of virus belongs to area of chemistry (the underlying science). However, most of the work reported in literature including in this publication is by experts from the area of medicine, immunology or infectious disease who arguably hardly would have any relevant training, expertise or experience in the science of extraction and characterization of any substance including virus.
Their experience and expertise in this area appear to be SOP (ritual) based practices which lack relevance to science of material (virus) extraction or isolation and its valid characterizations. Their work and claims could easily be challenged and shown false on scientific merit.
Unfortunate situation is that public perceives and believes that most claims made by the experts/scientists and authorities are science based, and studies and testing would have been conducted using the virus. Some examples of the claims made are: (1) SARS-CoV2 virus exists; (2) SARS-CoV2 is contagious; (3) SARS-CoV2 is 5 or 10 deadlier than common flu virus; (4) face-masks provide protection from the virus; (5) social distance (2m) protect public by stopping or reducing the spread of the virus; (6) washing hands or exposed skin surfaces provide protection from the virus; (7) lockdown (partial or full) help reducing the spread of the virus; (8) current significant increase in positive test results (“cases”) show wide spread of SARS-CoV2 virus; (9) vaccines are underdevelopment, with various time schedules for availability, to protect patients/public from SARS-CoV2 virus.
All these claims require validation using physical samples of the virus – but nowhere virus could be found and no one seems to be working on this aspect. There is no scientific evidence available in support of linking these claims to virus because virus has yet to be isolated and characterised. The only way such claim and associated policies can be justified if one can conduct experiments using physical sample of the virus.
Extremely simple experiments, at least in some cases such as establishing usefulness of masks [5], can be conducted if virus samples are available. But as the virus sample is not available hence even such claim (usefulness of masks) cannot be established or confirmed.
Experts and authorities are requested to reconsider their views concerning science and evidence in declaring the presence of the virus, its link to the disease along with its spread. Scientifically, there is no evidence available in support of the above claims and measures.
References:
[1] https://mra.asm.org/content/9/11/e00169-20
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/
[3] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/mja2.50569
[4] https://principia-scientific.org/international-pharmaceuticals-expert-exposes-pandemic-fakery/
Read more at www.drug-dissolution-testing.com
