Discover more from dpl’s Newsletter
An Update on Virus Isolation
F Rapp further exposed this pseudoscience in 1959.
Previous posts written on the lack of proof for the isolation of viruses include Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study and Mike Yeadon - Another Case of Lee Merritt. A summary of all the peer review publications on this work can be reviewed in Virology - The Damning Evidence and even though it might be going downstream in this debate one of the most important things to focus on is the virus isolation process. Just to reiterate the most important fact is the failure of proof of transmission of a pathogenic virus.
Short course - None existence of viruses
As a recap on the non-existence of viruses, I’d like to summarize the information in video format in a logical order. I again want to highlight that this is downstream of the argument. If you cannot prove transmission you have nothing but it is still important to understand the so-called “isolation” process.
The steps in which the isolation process is claimed can be explained as follows:
First of we can start with a lesson from the Master Stefan Lanka here.
Step 1 - The “isolation” procedure:
Virology blown up part 1 - They can never find a virus directly from a sample without doing a culture first. This is admitted by virologists and the video explaining it can be viewed here.
Virology blown up part 1 (differently explained) - You cannot mix a bunch of stuff together thinking you will be able to isolate something which is similar to that which you have mixed it with. Video explained here.
The relative size of a virus - It is important to have a perspective on the size of the particles we are dealing with. This allows you to better understand the fallacy behind virologists claiming that a virus cannot be isolated directly from a sample because IBM has the capability for manufacturing a chip 70 times smaller than a virus. The relative size of a virus is explained here.
To understand the fine structure of the living cell, Harold Hillman explained in 1977 the misconceptions of the understandings at the time in a video that can be reviewed here.
Extracellular vesicles - The Perth group did great work to expose the fraud that is virology. They merely scrutinized the work that was presented as evidence for HIV. Here is a video showing how they try and explain the blatant inconsistencies.
Add more poison and get more virus - The first “isolation” of SARS Cov 2 in Australia was also published and it was fascinating to see that they were able to observe more CPE with the addition of more poison. The video is can be viewed here. Something that was done in detail by Stefan Lanka also and his work is summarized here.
Step 2 - After “isolation” comes sequencing:
Virology blown up part 2 - After “isolation” they try and trick you by saying that the mixture of anything and everything is genome sequenced. One must understand that you feed information into a computer. It is told what to look for but if you have never “isolated” a virus in its pure form how can you tell the computer what to look for… Cowan explains this here.
The major flaw, and the reason for this article, is the current isolation process (step 1 above). If you have never “isolated” a virus there is no way you can claim that any work done on it, whether that be genome sequencing or electro-microscopy (EM), is actually done on a virus.
Step 1 - The “isolation” procedure
The most damning evidence against virology is the Ender 1954 control test that was done during the study that Enders claimed to have isolated a virus. This control test has been explained in detail in Virus Lie - The Result of 4 Years of Study and a snippet from the paper can be viewed below. This is also explained in video format here.
The purpose of the article however is not to repeat the same information again but rather to shed light on the second half of the discussion in the paper which reads as follows:
“But, when the cells from the infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed (1). Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from the cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of the convalescent measles serum (2). Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind (3).”
Dissecting this paragraph is enough to see that all Enders did was to try and confuse his readers and distract them from the fact that the control test was positive and that the entire study should have been deemed a failure. His first sentence (1) specifically “internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed” is of specific interest. How would you know what is typical of the measles agent if you have never before isolated the measles agent to document its characteristics? His final sentence in the paragraph (3) is what we are going to elaborate on further because the years following this study sealed the deal for the isolation of “viruses” using monkey kidney cells.
Isolation Using Monkey Cells
Following the Enders, 1954 isolation paper, F. Rapp et al published a study in 1959 in which he summarized all the studies that found that isolation of viruses cannot be done in cultures using monkey cells. For those who struggle with the link, the paper is titled:
Observation of Measles Virus Infection of Cultured Human Cells, A Study of Development of Spread of Virus Antigen by Means of Immunofluorescence by Fred Rapp, Erving Gordon, and Richard F. Baker., 1959
The study summarized the work that was done prior to 1959 that confirms that “Monkey kidney cells are unsuitable for use in cell cultures” as shown below.
Rapp lists the sources that confirmed his statement as Peebles et al and Ruckle, references 12, 13, and 14 shown in his list of references. A screenshot of the three studies is shown below. This work is also explained in video format in a video titled Enders 1954 control, double tap.
The most detailed control tests ever published - P. Gluschenkof as well as J. W. Bess, 1997
Further to the above the most detailed control test ever was carried out in 1997 in two separate studies by P. Gluschenkof et al and by Julian W. Bess et al. The studies are as follows:
A video explanation of the findings can be viewed here. They state that by 1997 no purified sample of HIV had ever been verified. Some highlights from the studies below.
Below is the Electron Microscopy results that show the infected culture in the top and middle slides and uninfected culture in the bottom slide. The results from the infected and non-infected cultures are identical. The arrows they say represent the HIV virus but in the bottom slide there is particles that are identical to those that were arrowed in the top and middle slides. The particles in the bottom slide were referred to a purified vesicles (cellular fragments or extra cellular vesicles - more on it here).
From the video which you can review here. The top and middle slides also show particles that “does not have all the morphological characteristics attributed to HIV. There is no evidence for knobs and even their diameter is larger than what is considered to be the retrovirus particles”. The same can be said about the second study.
A protein analysis was also undertaken and again the same was found. The uninfected and infected cultures showed the same proteins with differences that are merely quantitative and could be due to differences in the ways that the samples were cultured. Again, more information can be gained from the video here.
Bess stated that they did not obtain evidence from this study that these proteins were HIV but they labeled it HIV because the reviewer that reviewed their paper asked them to label them HIV.
The fraud of virology knows no end!
Step 2 - Sequencing
What must be understood is the fact that if you have never isolated a virus you do not have any idea what you are dealing with much less what you are sequencing. This is the main reason it is repeated that diving into the sequencing argument is not required because “isolation” has never been shown. Our interview with Jerneja Tomsic (a microbiologist) discusses this subject and can be viewed here.
If we consider that there is a viral agent out there making us sick it would be most logical that the first thing that has to be proven is transmission of this agent from a sick host to a healthy host. In 120 years this has never been done. There has not been a single transmission study that shows infection of a healthy host by means of natural transmission methods (refer to Virology - The Damning Evidence).
If it was possible to show transmission we could then consider the isolation of this viral agent. Preferably in the true sense of the word “isolation” and not the perverted meaning adopted by virology. It has however been shown in this article and in a lot of other material available on the internet that isolation of a virus, directly from a sample, is not possible. Literature has also shown that you cannot use monkey kidney cells as a culture medium because it produces an agent serologically indistinguishable from human measles viruses.
Lastly, anyone that makes the argument that we can now use sequencing is most definitely lost beyond words because you cannot claim that you have sequenced something that is incapable of doing what you claim it does (transmission and infection) and even less so for something that has never been proven to exist (failure to isolate).
Thanks for reading dpl’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.